AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two workstation cards into very different roles. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins no benchmark categories in the direct comparison, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 takes the single recorded head-to-head test. That does not tell the whole story, however, because the two cards were built for different eras and different workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a modern entry-level board. It carries a 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, which places it squarely in the middle of the pack. Its recorded OpenCL score of 11,228 puts it within striking distance of its nearest rivals: the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261 (0.3% higher), and both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants score 11,088 (1.3% lower). This is a card that trades blows with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts, and it does so with a very low power envelope.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000, by contrast, sits at the 46th percentile against all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 9,637, which is dragged down by a weak Metal score of 6,324. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly: the GeForce GTX 960M scores 9,645 (0.1% higher), the Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9,653 (0.2% higher), the Quadro P4000 scores 9,665 (0.3% higher), and the Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 (0.8% higher). The K5000 is an older, larger chip that still holds its own in OpenCL and Vulkan, but its average suffers from platform-specific gaps.

The practical split is this: the WX 3200 wins on efficiency, modern API support, and compact physical design, while the K5000 wins on raw throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The K5000 leads the direct OpenCL comparison by 1.7%, scoring 11,418 versus 11,228. In Vulkan, the K5000 scores 11,169, which is nearly identical to its OpenCL result. The WX 3200 has no recorded Vulkan or Metal scores, so the K5000 is the only card here with proven multi-API performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different design philosophies. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries at 14 nm. It packs 2,200 million transistors onto a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. This is a small, dense chip designed for low power and modern feature support.

The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The K5000 is a bigger, older, less dense chip that relies on brute-force shader count rather than process efficiency.

The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The K5000 dwarfs it with 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is more than double the shaders and four times the TMUs. The K5000 also has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit on the WX 3200, and memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

API support favors the AMD card. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card has a newer Vulkan revision and full DirectX 12 feature level, while the NVIDIA card is limited to the older 11_0 feature level.

Process node differences are stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm. The AMD card draws 65 W while the K5000 draws 122 W. The WX 3200 needs no power connectors and suggests a 250 W power supply, while the K5000 requires a single 6-pin connector and suggests a 300 W power supply. Physical size also differs dramatically: the WX 3200 is 167 mm long and 69 mm tall in a single-slot design, while the K5000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall in a dual-slot design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418, edging out the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228 by 1.7%. That is a narrow margin, roughly a 190-point gap, which falls well within the noise band of the nearest rival comparisons.

Looking at the rival clusters reinforces this picture. The WX 3200's closest competitor, the FirePro W4300, scores 11,225, essentially identical to the WX 3200's 11,228. The K5000's OpenCL score sits above all of its nearest rivals, which are around 9,637 to 9,716 on average. The K5000's OpenCL advantage over its own rival group is much larger than its advantage over the WX 3200.

The K5000 also has a Vulkan score of 11,169, which is within 2.2% of its OpenCL result. This suggests consistent performance across different compute APIs. The WX 3200 has no Vulkan or Metal scores recorded, so its cross-API behavior cannot be verified from the database. The K5000's Metal score of 6,324 is notably lower, indicating that Apple's Metal API is not a strength for this Kepler-era card.

The delta of 1.7% between the two cards in OpenCL is small enough that real-world differences would depend heavily on driver maturity, cooling, and specific workload characteristics. The K5000 has a higher peak FP32 rate at 2.169 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS, a 30.8% theoretical advantage. Pixel rate favors the K5000 at 22.59 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate is where the K5000 runs away: 90.37 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s, more than double.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 14 nm for AMD, 28 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 2,200 million versus 3,540 million. Die size: 103 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density: 21.4M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm².

Clock speeds: the WX 3200 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the K5000 runs at 706 MHz base and 706 MHz boost. Memory clocks: the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), the K5000 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Memory bus width: 128-bit versus 256-bit. Memory bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s.

Compute resources: 640 shading units versus 1,536, 32 TMUs versus 128, 16 ROPs versus 32. FP32 throughput: 1.658 TFLOPS versus 2.169 TFLOPS. The WX 3200 has FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the K5000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and cooling: 65 W TDP versus 122 W TDP. Single-slot versus dual-slot. No power connectors versus one 6-pin connector. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs: the WX 3200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K5000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Dimensions: 167 mm by 69 mm versus 267 mm by 111 mm.

Release timing: the WX 3200 launched in July 2019, the K5000 in August 2012. Both are end-of-life products. The WX 3200 succeeded the Radeon Pro GCN line and was succeeded by Radeon Pro Vega. The K5000 succeeded Quadro Fermi and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 3200 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.3. However, the database has no recorded Vulkan benchmark score for the WX 3200, so its actual Vulkan performance is not measured.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The WX 3200 has an average score of 11,228 from a single OpenCL test. The K5000 has an average score of 9,637, which includes OpenCL, Vulkan, and Metal results.

Q: Why is the K5000's average score lower than its OpenCL score?

A: The K5000's Metal benchmark score is 6,324, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL score of 11,418 and Vulkan score of 11,169. This drags down the average.

Q: Which card has higher texture processing capability?

A: The K5000 has a texture rate of 90.37 GTexel/s, more than double the WX 3200's 41.44 GTexel/s. It also has 128 TMUs versus 32.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The WX 3200 launched in July 2019, and the K5000 launched in August 2012.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, takes the OpenCL lead by 1.7%, and has a massive theoretical advantage in shader count, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. It also has a recorded Vulkan score of 11,169, which the WX 3200 cannot match because it has no Vulkan benchmark recorded.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, however, is not simply a loser. It draws 65 W versus 122 W, fits in a single slot versus dual slot, needs no power connector, and supports newer API revisions including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the K5000's Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). Its transistor density is nearly double, at 21.4M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm², and it uses a modern 14 nm process versus 28 nm.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life workstation cards, the decision hinges on workload and platform. If the task is compute-heavy OpenCL or Vulkan rendering where raw shader throughput matters, the K5000 is the stronger choice on paper. Its 2.169 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.37 GTexel/s texture rate give it a clear edge in geometry-heavy scenes. The K5000 also offers a 256-bit memory bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, which helps with large datasets.

If the priority is a low-power, compact workstation card for a modern system with PCIe 3.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a monitors, the WX 3200 is the more sensible fit. It runs cooler, uses less power, and supports newer display outputs. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1.658 TFLOPS are modest, but they are delivered in a 167 mm single-slot package that fits almost anywhere.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile across all GPUs, the K5000 at the 46th. The WX 3200's single benchmark score of 11,228 is more consistent with its position, while the K5000's average of 9,637 is pulled down by its weak Metal showing. In OpenCL specifically, the K5000 is ahead, but not by much.

The verdict: choose the K5000 for maximum compute throughput and legacy DVI support, choose the WX 3200 for modern connectivity, lower power, and compact size. Neither is a clear winner across the board, but the K5000 holds the performance crown in the recorded benchmarks.