AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and the AMD Radeon 8050S represent two distinct philosophies in GPU design: a workstation behemoth from 2018 versus a modern integrated graphics processor for mobile devices. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the story is far more nuanced than simple score comparisons. The WX 8200, built on the older GCN 5.0 architecture, dominates in raw compute benchmarks, while the 8050S offers a radically different set of characteristics that challenge traditional notions of GPU capability. This analysis examines the data to determine what each card excels at and who should consider them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is a straightforward affair, with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 winning both available benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the WX 8200 scores 69,774 against the 8050S’s 65,818, a 6% advantage. This is a solid, if not overwhelming, lead in a general-purpose compute workload that heavily favors raw throughput. The delta is more pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the WX 8200 posts 69,076 versus the 8050S’s 58,398, an 18.3% margin. This significant gap in Vulkan performance suggests the older architecture handles the low-level graphics API with substantially greater efficiency in this specific test, likely due to its dedicated memory subsystem and higher raw shading power.

The WX 8200’s average benchmark score of 69,870 places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the 8050S’s average of 62,108 places it in the 89th percentile. Despite the 8050S’s lower absolute scores, the percentile difference is minimal, indicating that in the broader ecosystem of available GPUs, both cards are positioned in a similar tier of overall capability. The WX 8200’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, with an average score of 69,986, a delta of -0.2%, meaning the WX 8200 is essentially tied with that professional heavyweight. The 8050S’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, with an average score of 61,896, a delta of 0.3%, showing the 8050S holds a narrow edge over its nearest competitor.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins in all measured benchmark categories. Its victory in OpenCL (69,774 vs 65,818) and Vulkan (69,076 vs 58,398) demonstrates superiority in both compute and graphics workloads as measured by Geekbench. This makes it the straightforward choice for applications that rely on these APIs for tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. The 18.3% lead in Vulkan is particularly notable, suggesting a significant advantage in games or professional applications that leverage this modern API.

The AMD Radeon 8050S, while losing both benchmarks, wins in every non-performance category that matters for its target market. Its 55W TDP versus the WX 8200’s 230W means it consumes drastically less power and can be integrated into a laptop as an IGP. It has no power connectors and a portable form factor, making it the only viable option for thin-and-light systems. The 8050S also supports the latest features, including PCIe 5.0, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 8200 is limited to PCIe 3.0, DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.3. The 8050S is also an active product, while the WX 8200 is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a higher average benchmark score of 69,870, compared to the AMD Radeon 8050S’s average of 62,108.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 69,076, which is 18.3% higher than the AMD Radeon 8050S’s score of 58,398.

Q: Are these GPUs in a similar performance class relative to all other GPUs?

A: Yes, the data indicates they are closely positioned. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon 8050S is in the 89th percentile.

Q: Which GPU is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 most similar to in performance?

A: Its average score of 69,870 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, which has an average score of 69,986, making them effectively tied.

Q: Which GPU is the AMD Radeon 8050S most similar to in performance?

A: Its average score of 62,108 is a 0.3% improvement over the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, which has an average score of 61,896.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 8050S have a dedicated memory bus?

A: No, the 8050S uses System Shared memory, with a bus width and bandwidth that are System Dependent, unlike the WX 8200 which has a dedicated 2048-bit HBM2 interface.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight a fundamental divergence in design goals. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a dual-slot, 267mm-long board with a 230W TDP and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. In contrast, the AMD Radeon 8050S is an IGP with a 55W TDP, no power connectors, and no physical dimensions listed, as it is integrated into a portable device. The WX 8200 has 8GB of dedicated HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 8050S relies on System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The WX 8200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the 8050S’s display outputs are Portable Device Dependent. The bus interface also differs, with the WX 8200 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the 8050S using the newer PCIe 5.0 x16.

Further differentiating the two, the WX 8200 has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz, while the 8050S has a lower base clock of 1295 MHz but a much higher boost clock of 2800 MHz. The memory clock for the WX 8200 is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the 8050S’s memory clock is listed as System Shared. The WX 8200 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, a fact that can be stated once for context. The 8050S has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is immense, spanning multiple generations. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on the Vega 10 chip using the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.3M / mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon 8050S uses the Strix Halo chip based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is 308 mm², but its transistor count is listed as unknown.

The core configurations differ significantly. The WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the 8050S has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 8050S, however, includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the WX 8200. The pixel rate for the WX 8200 is 96.00 GPixel/s, while the 8050S is higher at 179.2 GPixel/s. The texture rate is also higher for the 8050S at 358.4 GTexel/s versus the WX 8200’s 336.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is close, with the 8050S at 11.47 TFLOPS slightly ahead of the WX 8200’s 10.75 TFLOPS. The FP16 performance, however, is starkly different: the WX 8200 achieves 21.50 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the 8050S achieves 11.47 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The Verdict

The data leads to an unambiguous conclusion for raw performance: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the superior choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and a higher percentile ranking. For any professional or enthusiast whose primary concern is maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the WX 8200 is the clear winner. Its 6% lead in OpenCL and 18.3% lead in Vulkan are decisive. The WX 8200’s dedicated 8GB of HBM2 memory with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth is a massive advantage over the 8050S’s system-shared memory, which is likely a major factor in its benchmark superiority. The data suggests that for desktop workstations where power and space are not constraints, the older WX 8200 remains a highly capable performer.

The AMD Radeon 8050S is a different kind of product entirely. It loses every benchmark, but it does so while consuming only 55W, fitting into an IGP form factor, and offering modern features like ray tracing cores and PCIe 5.0 support. Its higher boost clock of 2800 MHz and higher pixel and texture rates indicate a design optimized for efficiency and specific modern workloads, not brute-force general compute. The 8050S is the only choice for a portable device, and its feature set makes it a more future-proof platform for software that can utilize DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. For a user who needs a GPU for a laptop, the 8050S is the only option presented. For anyone building a desktop workstation, the data overwhelmingly favors the WX 8200, provided its end-of-life status and higher power requirements are acceptable. The verdict is not about which is better, but which is right for the intended use case.