AMD Instinct MI100 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI100 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 serve entirely different segments of the professional GPU market, and the benchmark data makes that distinction clear. The MI100 is a compute-oriented accelerator with a 96th percentile ranking across all GPUs, while the WX 8200 sits at the 90th percentile. In the single recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the MI100 scores 139,035 versus 69,774 for the WX 8200, a 99.3% advantage. This is not a close contest. The MI100 is the choice for compute workloads that scale with raw throughput, memory bandwidth, and large memory capacity. The WX 8200, with its display outputs and broader API support, is the option for workstation tasks that require both rendering and general compute, though its compute ceiling is far lower. Users who need a GPU purely for compute acceleration, especially with large datasets, should select the MI100. Users who need a card that can drive displays and run OpenGL or Vulkan workloads should consider the WX 8200, but they must accept its significantly lower compute performance.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Instinct MI100 than the Radeon Pro WX 8200 in OpenCL?

A: The MI100 scores 139,035 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the WX 8200 scores 69,774. That is a 99.3% difference, meaning the MI100 delivers nearly double the OpenCL performance of the WX 8200.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and memory bandwidth?

A: The MI100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI100 offers four times the capacity and roughly 2.4 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 8200 support displays?

A: Yes, the WX 8200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI100 has no display outputs, which indicates it is designed for headless compute installations.

Q: What API support does each GPU have?

A: The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MI100 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming its compute-only orientation.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MI100 edges out the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB by 0.7% and the Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB by 0.9%, while leading the AMD Radeon PRO V620 by 1.9% and the Radeon Pro W6800X Duo by 2.4%. The WX 8200 sits within a narrow band: it is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, 0.4% behind the RTX A3000 Mobile, 1.3% ahead of the CMP 90HX, and 1.4% behind the Radeon RX 6600 LE.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Radeon Pro WX 8200?

A: The launch MSRP is 999 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The MI100 uses the Arcturus chip built on CDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. The WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This generational gap explains much of the performance disparity.

The MI100 packs 25,600 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 34.1M per mm². The WX 8200 contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a density of 25.3M per mm². The MI100 has more than double the transistor count and a higher density, reflecting the newer process node and denser compute-oriented design.

Shading resources differ substantially. The MI100 has 7,680 shading units, 480 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI100 carries exactly twice the shading units and more than double the texture units, while ROP counts match at 64. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The MI100 operates with a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1502 MHz. The WX 8200 has a higher base clock at 1200 MHz but a nearly identical boost clock at 1500 MHz. Despite the clock similarity, the MI100's massive shading unit advantage drives its performance lead.

The MI100 is an end-of-life product released on 2020-11-15, with a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The WX 8200, also end-of-life, was released on 2018-08-12, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro GCN and a successor of Radeon Pro Vega. The MI100's generation is listed as Instinct (MIx), while the WX 8200's generation is Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The MI100 uses a 7 nm TSMC process, while the WX 8200 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor count is 25,600 million versus 12,500 million, and die size is 750 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density is 34.1M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm².

Memory configurations are drastically different. The MI100 offers 32 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The WX 8200 offers 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the MI100 runs at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), while the WX 8200 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Compute resources diverge sharply. The MI100 has 7,680 shading units versus 3,584, and 480 TMUs versus 224. ROP counts are equal at 64. Pixel rates are nearly identical at 96.13 GPixel/s for the MI100 and 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 8200. Texture rates differ substantially: 721.0 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 23.07 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 46.14 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio.

Power and connectivity also differ. The MI100 has a TDP of 300 W, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 700 W PSU. The WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The MI100 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The MI100 has no display outputs; the WX 8200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support differs completely: the MI100 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Both cards are dual-slot with identical dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a decisive victory for the MI100. The MI100 scores 139,035 against the WX 8200's 69,774, a 99.3% delta. This means the MI100 delivers almost exactly double the OpenCL performance of the WX 8200. Such a margin is consistent with the MI100's doubling of shading units, more than double the texture units, and substantially higher memory bandwidth.

The MI100's 139,035 score places it at the 96th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all within a tight band: the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB at 138,063 (0.7% behind), the Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB at 137,731 (0.9% behind), the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (1.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (2.4% behind). The MI100 leads all four, but the margins are slim, suggesting that at this performance tier, the MI100 is competitive with, but not dominant over, its closest peers.

The WX 8200's average benchmark score is 69,870, which includes its Geekbench Metal score of 70,759, OpenCL score of 69,774, and Vulkan score of 69,076. These scores are tightly clustered, showing consistent performance across different compute APIs. The WX 8200's 90th percentile ranking places it well below the MI100 in overall standing. Its nearest rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (0.2% ahead), the RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.4% ahead), the CMP 90HX at 69,000 (1.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829 (1.4% ahead). The WX 8200 essentially trades blows with these cards, sitting in the middle of a narrow performance cluster.

The delta between the two AMD cards is far larger than any delta within their respective rival groups. The MI100's 99.3% lead over the WX 8200 in OpenCL dwarfs the 2.4% maximum gap among the MI100's rivals and the 1.4% maximum gap among the WX 8200's rivals. This indicates that the architectural and specification differences between the two cards translate into a clean performance tier separation, not a close contest.

The MI100's wins count is 1, and the WX 8200's is 0 in the head-to-head comparison. The performance data supports this outcome clearly. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the MI100 is the superior choice by a wide margin. For workstation tasks that require display output and graphics API support, the WX 8200 remains functional, but its compute performance is roughly half that of the MI100.