AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two very distinct territories. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has exactly one recorded score in the database, an OpenCL result of 11228 points. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000, in contrast, has a much broader benchmark footprint, with results spanning DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, plus Vulkan, OpenCL, and compute workloads. In the single head-to-head test where both cards have a matching score, the OpenCL benchmark, the Quadro P4000 wins decisively. That result alone tells you where the practical advantage lies for most professional workloads.

The WX 3200 is a card that exists in a narrower performance envelope. Its one recorded OpenCL score places it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. That is a mid-pack position, and the nearest rivals confirm the company it keeps: the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11225, a delta of 0%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11261, a delta of -0.3%. The WX 3200 is essentially trading blows with those cards, which are older or lower-tier parts. For a workstation card aimed at entry-level CAD and light content creation, that is a functional but modest performance level.

The Quadro P4000, by contrast, sits at the 47th percentile across all GPUs in the database, but its average benchmark score of 9665 across a much larger set of tests masks a key detail. Its OpenCL score alone is 36212, which is more than three times the WX 3200's OpenCL result. The P4000 also produces a Vulkan score of 41786, which is even higher. The percentile ranking is dragged down by the mix of tests, some of which are legacy DirectX 9 and 10 workloads where the card scores relatively low. But in modern compute and graphics APIs, the P4000 is clearly in a different class.

So the split is simple. The WX 3200 wins on the basis of being a low-power, single-slot, bus-powered board that fits into compact systems and does not need auxiliary power. It wins on physical integration. The P4000 wins on absolute performance, every time, in every workload where both are measured. If your priority is raw compute throughput or high-resolution texturing, the P4000 is the only rational choice. If your priority is a minimal footprint and minimal power draw, the WX 3200 has a place.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for different user profiles. For anyone running OpenCL-accelerated workloads, the Quadro P4000 is the pick. Its 36212 OpenCL score versus the WX 3200's 11228 is a 69% advantage, which is not a marginal gap. That is a generational leap in compute throughput. For tasks like rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated analysis that rely on OpenCL, the P4000 finishes work in roughly a third of the time, based on the raw score ratio.

For users who need a card that slips into a small chassis, runs off the slot alone, and draws only 65 W, the WX 3200 is the answer. It requires no power connectors and a 250 W power supply is sufficient. The P4000 needs a 6-pin connector and a 300 W supply. The WX 3200 is also much shorter at 167 mm versus 241 mm, and shorter in height at 69 mm versus 111 mm. If your workstation has a small interior or a restrictive power budget, the WX 3200 is the only one of the two that fits.

Consider the production status. Both cards are end-of-life. Neither is a future-proof investment. The P4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the WX 3200's 4 GB on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s. For large datasets, the P4000's memory capacity and bandwidth are decisive. The P4000 also has a much higher pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s and texture rate of 165.8 GTexel/s, versus 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s for the WX 3200.

The verdict is stratified. If you must stay within a 65 W envelope and a single-slot, low-profile physical constraint, the WX 3200 is your only option here. If you have the power headroom and the physical space, the P4000 is the superior performer in every measurable benchmark. There is no scenario where the WX 3200 beats the P4000 in a compute or graphics test. There is only a scenario where the WX 3200 fits where the P4000 cannot.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards, and it is the OpenCL test. The WX 3200 scores 11228, the P4000 scores 36212. The delta is -69% for the AMD card, meaning the P4000 is roughly 3.2 times faster in this workload. OpenCL is a common API for professional applications, including many rendering engines and scientific computing packages, so this result is directly relevant to workstation buyers.

The P4000's other scores reinforce its dominance. In Vulkan, it scores 41786, even higher than its OpenCL result. In Passmark's G3D test, it scores 11466, and in GPU compute it scores 4913. The WX 3200 has no recorded scores in those tests, so we cannot draw a direct comparison. But the OpenCL gap alone is enough to establish the performance hierarchy. When a card triples the score of its rival in the one test where both are measured, the outcome is not in doubt for other modern APIs.

The WX 3200's nearest rivals in the database are informative. The FirePro W4300, which is a similar AMD workstation card of the same era, scores 11225, a 0% delta. The GeForce GTX 780M, a laptop GPU from a prior generation, scores 11261, a -0.3% delta. The WX 3200 is bracketed by these parts, which means its performance level is consistent with mid-range hardware from roughly 2014 to 2017. It is not a high-performance part by modern standards.

The P4000's nearest rivals paint a different picture. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9653, a 0.1% delta, and the GeForce GTX 960M scores 9645, a 0.2% delta. These are entry-level and mobile parts. The P4000's average score of 9665 is close to them, but that average is skewed by its weak legacy DirectX scores. In DirectX 9, the P4000 scores only 181, and in DirectX 10, only 66. Those are ancient API workloads, and the low scores drag the average down. In modern APIs, the P4000 is far ahead of its average suggests.

For practical purposes, the head-to-head is a one-sided affair. The P4000 wins the only direct comparison and has a broader set of strong modern scores. The WX 3200 has a single modest OpenCL score and no other data points. If you are choosing based on benchmark results alone, the P4000 is the clear winner. The WX 3200's only advantages are physical and electrical, not performance-based.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 36212 in OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. The P4000 is 69% ahead.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 be powered without a dedicated power cable?

A: Yes. The WX 3200 has no power connectors and requires only a 250 W power supply. The Quadro P4000 needs a 6-pin connector and a 300 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, compared to 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus for the WX 3200.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The WX 3200 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high. The P4000 is 241 mm long and 111 mm high. The WX 3200 is significantly more compact.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Quadro P4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels?

A: The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes additional features.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip, built on the GCN 4.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The chip contains 2,200 million transistors on a die size of 103 mm², giving a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. GCN 4.0 is a mature architecture that emphasizes balanced compute and graphics, but Polaris 23 is a small, cut-down implementation.

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip, built on the Pascal architecture. It is fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 314 mm², giving a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. Pascal is a later design than GCN 4.0, and GP104 is a much larger, higher-end chip. The transistor count is over three times that of Polaris 23, and the die size is roughly three times larger.

The architecture differences show up in the compute feature sets. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The P4000 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. These are not proportional increases; the P4000 has nearly three times the shading units and seven times the texture units. The P4000 also has a much higher FP32 throughput at 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS for the WX 3200.

The FP16 support is a major divergence. The WX 3200 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 throughput at 1.658 TFLOPS. The P4000 supports FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is only 82.88 GFLOPS. This is a significant difference for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. The AMD card is much better suited to FP16 compute, while the NVIDIA card is optimized for FP32 and higher precision.

Both cards share some features. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Both are single-slot designs. Both use GDDR5 memory. Both have four display outputs, though the WX 3200 uses mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and the P4000 uses full-size DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface differs, with the WX 3200 running at PCIe 3.0 x8 and the P4000 at PCIe 3.0 x16, which gives the P4000 twice the host bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the P4000 has 8 GB. The bus width is 128 bit versus 256 bit, and the bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 243.3 GB/s. The P4000 has a 2.5 times bandwidth advantage, which matters for large textures and datasets.

The clock speeds also differ. The WX 3200 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, but its memory runs at 1500 MHz, or 6 Gbps effective. The P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, with memory at 1901 MHz, or 7.6 Gbps effective. The P4000's memory is faster in both raw clock and effective data rate.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, while the P4000 has a TDP of 105 W. The WX 3200 needs no power connectors, while the P4000 requires a 6-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the WX 3200 and 300 W for the P4000. The WX 3200 is the clear choice for power-constrained systems.

The physical dimensions differ substantially. The WX 3200 is 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high. The P4000 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The WX 3200 is roughly 30% shorter and 40% lower in height, making it suitable for small form factor builds.

The bus interface is a key difference. The WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which halves the host link bandwidth compared to the P4000's PCIe 3.0 x16. This can impact data transfer for workloads that stream large amounts of geometry or data from system memory.

The display outputs are similar in count but different in connector type. The WX 3200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the P4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support the same DisplayPort version, but the physical connector differs, which may affect cable compatibility.

The API support shows one clear difference. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The P4000 implements the higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which may enable additional rendering features in some applications.

Finally, the release dates and MSRP differ. The WX 3200 launched on 2019-07-01 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The P4000 launched on 2017-02-05 with a launch MSRP of 815 USD. The P4000 was released earlier and priced higher, reflecting its larger chip and greater memory capacity. Both cards are now end-of-life, but the P4000's higher launch MSRP aligns with its significantly higher benchmark performance.