AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points against the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 10,057 points, giving AMD an 11.6% lead in this compute-oriented workload. That is a decisive margin for a professional mobile GPU comparison, placing the WX 3200 in the 50th percentile of all GPUs while the M2000M sits at the 47th percentile. In practical terms, this means the AMD card is faster for OpenCL-accelerated tasks such as rendering, simulation, and data processing.

However, the M2000M has a second data point that the WX 3200 lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,606. While this cannot be directly compared to the AMD card (no Vulkan result is listed for the WX 3200), it indicates that NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture can handle modern graphics APIs, though the score is notably lower than its own OpenCL result. The WX 3200’s single OpenCL score of 11,228 is also its average benchmark score, whereas the M2000M’s average across two tests is 9,832 — a figure that pulls its overall standing down relative to its OpenCL-only performance.

When contextualizing against nearest rivals, the WX 3200’s 11,228 sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M’s 11,261 and essentially ties the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225 (0% delta). It also edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q’s 11,088 by 1.3% — a surprising result for a low-end professional card against a flagship-class product. The M2000M’s 10,057 is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 9,846 and 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 1070’s 9,780, showing it clusters tightly with older or higher-tier workstation parts. Put simply: the AMD card wins the only head-to-head test, and it wins by a meaningful double-digit percentage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. AMD’s Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA’s Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, built by TSMC on a larger 28 nm node. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a lower density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The process advantage is clear: AMD fits more transistors into less silicon, which typically translates to better power efficiency per unit of area.

Both cards have 640 shading units and 16 ROPs, but their texture units differ. The M2000M has 40 TMUs versus the WX 3200’s 32, giving NVIDIA a higher texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s against AMD’s 41.44 GTexel/s. Yet AMD counters with a higher pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s, thanks to its faster clocks. The M2000M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1,098 MHz and 1,137 MHz, while the WX 3200’s clocks are not listed — only its memory clock of 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the M2000M’s 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are similar: both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. However, AMD’s higher memory clock yields 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus NVIDIA’s 80.19 GB/s — an 20% advantage in raw memory throughput. FP32 compute also favors AMD at 1.658 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS, and AMD lists FP16 at the same 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS) while NVIDIA does not specify FP16 support. Power draw is modest on both: AMD’s TDP is 65 W, NVIDIA’s is 55 W, though the WX 3200 includes a suggested PSU of 250 W while the M2000M lists none.

Form factors diverge sharply. The WX 3200 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x8 card, 167 mm long and 69 mm tall, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The M2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module with no fixed dimensions and display outputs described only as “portable device dependent.” This reflects their intended install bases: AMD targets desktop workstations with standard expansion slots, while NVIDIA targets laptops and compact mobile workstations. Both support DirectX 12 (though AMD at feature level 12_0 and NVIDIA at 11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (AMD 1.3, NVIDIA 1.4).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 10,057. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and AMD wins it outright.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. However, AMD’s memory runs at 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) providing 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA’s runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 80.19 GB/s — a 20% bandwidth advantage for AMD.

Q: How do these cards compare on transistor density and process node?

A: AMD’s Polaris 23 chip is built on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a density of 21.4 million per mm². NVIDIA’s GM107 uses TSMC’s 28 nm node with 1,870 million transistors on 148 mm², yielding 12.6 million per mm². AMD is significantly more efficient in packing transistors.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two?

A: The WX 3200 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x8 card measuring 167 mm by 69 mm, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The M2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module with no listed dimensions and display outputs dependent on the host device. AMD is for desktop towers; NVIDIA is for mobile workstations.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M lists Vulkan 1.4 support and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,606. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 lists Vulkan 1.3 but has no Vulkan benchmark score in the database. Without a comparable score, NVIDIA’s higher API version is the only factual differentiator.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a lower TDP of 55 W but no suggested PSU listed, as it is designed for mobile platforms where power delivery is handled by the laptop.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but context-dependent recommendation. If you need raw OpenCL compute performance in a desktop workstation, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the superior choice — it beats the M2000M by 11.6% in the only shared benchmark, has 20% more memory bandwidth, and achieves higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS). Its smaller die (103 mm² versus 148 mm²) and modern 14 nm process also suggest better architectural efficiency, even at a slightly higher 65 W TDP versus 55 W.

However, if your system requires an MXM-A module for a laptop or mobile workstation, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the only viable option among these two — the WX 3200’s PCIe slot format simply will not fit. The M2000M also has the edge in texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s) and offers Vulkan 1.4 support with a measurable score of 9,606, which may matter for applications that prioritize newer graphics APIs. Its OpenCL score of 10,057 is still respectable, landing just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1070.

Neither card is a modern powerhouse — both are end-of-life products. But for a fixed desktop build, the WX 3200’s benchmark lead is decisive. For a mobile deployment, the M2000M’s form factor forces the decision. Choose based on your chassis, not on paper specs alone.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Texture Units | 32 | 40 |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.658 TFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 65 W | 55 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 167 mm x 69 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2019-07-01 | 2015-12-02 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins in compute-heavy scenarios that rely on OpenCL. Its 11,228 Geekbench OpenCL score beats the M2000M’s 10,057 by 11.6%, and its higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) gives it an edge in bandwidth-bound workloads like texture streaming or large dataset processing. The FP32 advantage (1.658 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS) reinforces this — any task that scales with shader compute or memory throughput will favor AMD. The WX 3200’s pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s also beats NVIDIA’s 18.19 GPixel/s, which matters for fill-rate-limited rendering passes.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in texture-bound scenarios. Its 40 TMUs produce a texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s, surpassing AMD’s 41.44 GTexel/s by nearly 10%. This is relevant for applications with heavy texture filtering, such as certain CAD viewports or 3D modeling tools. The M2000M also holds the Vulkan advantage — it lists API version 1.4 with a benchmark score of 9,606, while the WX 3200 only lists 1.3 with no test result. If your software stack leans on Vulkan, NVIDIA at least has demonstrable performance. Finally, the M2000M’s lower 55 W TDP makes it more suitable for thermally constrained mobile chassis, though this is a practical rather than performance win.

For raw compute and bandwidth, pick the WX 3200. For texture throughput and Vulkan compatibility in a mobile form factor, the M2000M is the better bet. The data does not support a universal winner — it supports a decision based on your workload and hardware constraints.