AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are two end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards aimed at entry-level CAD, design, and visualization tasks. The data available for direct comparison is limited to a single Geekbench OpenCL run, where the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11431 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s 11228. This represents a 1.8% advantage for the Quadro, a narrow margin that places both cards in the same performance tier. However, the broader benchmark landscape, including the Quadro’s additional Vulkan result and each card’s average scores across all tested workloads, reveals distinct characteristics that may influence a purchasing decision.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 holds the only direct head-to-head victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 by a delta of -1.8% (from AMD’s perspective), meaning the Quadro is ahead by nearly two percentage points. This is the sole benchmark where both cards were tested against each other, and the Quadro takes it. Furthermore, the Quadro’s average benchmark score across all its tests (including the Vulkan result) is 10761, which is lower than its OpenCL score due to the Vulkan workload scoring 10090. In contrast, the AMD card’s average score is identical to its OpenCL score at 11228, suggesting the AMD card’s performance is consistent across the tests it has been subjected to.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, despite losing the head-to-head, shows a higher average benchmark score than the Quadro’s average. The AMD card’s average of 11228 exceeds the Quadro’s 10761 by approximately 4.3%. This discrepancy arises because the Quadro’s Vulkan score (10090) drags its average down, while the AMD card lacks a Vulkan result in the data. Therefore, if a workload relies on OpenCL, the Quadro is marginally faster per the direct comparison. If a workload uses Vulkan, the Quadro has a concrete score of 10090, but no comparable AMD Vulkan number exists, so the AMD card’s Vulkan performance is unquantified here.

In terms of percentile ranking among all GPUs, the AMD card sits at the 50th percentile, while the Quadro is at the 49th. This is effectively a tie, with the AMD card holding a one-percentile advantage. The nearest rivals for the AMD card include the AMD FirePro W4300 (11225, delta 0%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11261, delta -0.3%), and two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (both 11088, delta 1.3%). For the Quadro, its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804, delta -0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10690, delta 0.7%), NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883, delta -1.1%), and AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10629, delta 1.2%). These rivalries show that the AMD card competes with slightly faster parts (GTX 780M) and slightly slower parts (RTX PRO 6000 Max-Q), while the Quadro sits between the MX350 and the Radeon Pro 450 in performance.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the winner in the only direct benchmark comparison, with a 1.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance as measured by that specific test, the Quadro is the safer choice. Its additional Vulkan score of 10090 also demonstrates functional Vulkan support, which the AMD card lacks in the provided dataset. However, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 should not be dismissed. Its average benchmark score across all tests (11228) is higher than the Quadro’s average (10761), and its percentile ranking is marginally better. This suggests that in a broader range of workloads—or in repeated runs averaging out variability—the AMD card may perform more consistently, as its single OpenCL score matches its average exactly.

For a professional user whose primary application is OpenCL-accelerated rendering or computation, the Quadro K2200 offers a small but measurable edge. For a user who needs Vulkan performance, the Quadro has a verified score, making it the only card with documented Vulkan capability in this comparison. Conversely, if the user’s workload is not OpenCL or Vulkan but rather relies on other APIs (like DirectX or OpenGL), the data here is insufficient to declare a winner, as both cards support DirectX 12 (with the AMD card at 12_0 and the Quadro at 11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card’s higher average score hints at better overall stability, but the direct head-to-head favors NVIDIA. The verdict is narrow: the Quadro wins the direct test, but the AMD card has a higher aggregate score. Choose the Quadro for the confirmed OpenCL lead and Vulkan support; choose the AMD card if you trust its higher average score to translate to consistent performance across varied tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11431, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. The delta percentage is -1.8% from the AMD card’s perspective, meaning the Quadro is 1.8% faster. This is a close result, well within the margin of noise for many benchmark suites, but it is a definitive win for NVIDIA in the recorded data. The Quadro’s advantage here is likely tied to its higher boost clock of 1124 MHz versus the AMD card’s unspecified boost clock, but the data does not provide a direct causal link. The Quadro also has a higher texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s) compared to the AMD card’s 41.44 GTexel/s, which could contribute to its performance in texture-bound OpenCL workloads. However, the AMD card has a higher pixel rate (20.72 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s) and higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), which would favor it in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The net effect, as measured by the benchmark, is a 1.8% win for the Quadro.

Beyond the head-to-head, the Quadro’s Vulkan score of 10090 is a significant data point. This score is notably lower than its OpenCL score, indicating that the Quadro performs better in OpenCL than in Vulkan. The AMD card has no Vulkan score, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible. The average scores also tell a story: the AMD card’s average equals its OpenCL score, suggesting no other benchmarks were run or that they produced identical results. The Quadro’s average is pulled down by the Vulkan result, which is 11.7% lower than its OpenCL score. This implies that for the Quadro, OpenCL is the stronger API, while Vulkan is a secondary, weaker option. For the AMD card, OpenCL is the only measured API, so no such comparison can be made.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the direct Geekbench OpenCL comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins with a score of 11431 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s 11228, a 1.8% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: Yes, the AMD card’s average benchmark score is 11228, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s average is 10761 across its two tests.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 support Vulkan, and what is its score?

A: Yes, the Quadro K2200 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10090. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has no Vulkan score listed in the data.

Q: Which card has a better percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 ranks at the 50th percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 ranks at the 49th percentile, making the AMD card marginally higher.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.44 TFLOPS), making the AMD card about 15% higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Are both cards single-slot and do they require external power?

A: Yes, both cards are single-slot and have no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W for each.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a die size of 103 mm², yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K2200, in contrast, uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,870 million transistors on a larger die of 148 mm², resulting in a lower transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The AMD card’s smaller, denser die reflects a more modern manufacturing process.

In terms of memory, both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the AMD card runs its memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), providing 80.19 GB/s. The AMD card also has a higher pixel rate (20.72 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s) and a lower texture rate (41.44 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s). The shading unit count is identical at 640, but the AMD card has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro has 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The AMD card’s FP32 performance is 1.658 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 ratio, while the Quadro’s FP32 is 1,438.7 GFLOPS with no listed FP16 support. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, meaning the Quadro has a wider but older interface. The AMD card has a base clock that is not listed, but its memory clock is 1500 MHz, whereas the Quadro has a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz. The AMD card’s TDP is 65 W, slightly lower than the Quadro’s 68 W. The AMD card has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Quadro has one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The AMD card is shorter at 167 mm (6.6 inches) and lower at 69 mm (2.7 inches), while the Quadro is longer at 202 mm (8 inches) and taller at 111 mm (4.4 inches). The AMD card’s launch MSRP was 199 USD, while the Quadro’s launch MSRP is not provided. The AMD card’s release date is 2019-07-01, and the Quadro’s is 2014-07-21. The AMD card’s predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega, while the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.