AMD Radeon 8060S vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon 8060S is the clear performance winner in the recorded benchmarks, taking both head-to-head tests and delivering notably higher scores in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, however, remains a workstation-oriented card with a dedicated 8 GB HBM2 memory subsystem, a 2048-bit bus, and a 90th percentile standing among all GPUs. The database shows the 8060S winning the OpenCL test by 17.6% and the Vulkan test by 14.2%, yet its overall average benchmark score is dragged down by a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result that is far below the other two scores.

For users who need raw compute in cross-platform APIs, the Radeon 8060S is the better pick. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 84626 and Vulkan score of 80483 both exceed the WX 8200's results of 69774 and 69076 respectively. The 8060S also carries modern features like 40 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, making it a forward-looking choice for portable devices. The WX 8200 is an end-of-life product with a dual-slot cooler, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a 230 W TDP, which positions it as a traditional desktop workstation card.

The 8060S is the one to select for anyone prioritizing newer architecture, higher clock speeds, and better raw scores in the recorded tests. The WX 8200 is the one to consider when dedicated memory bandwidth matters more than raw compute, because its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2048-bit bus are fixed hardware resources, whereas the 8060S relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The WX 8200 also has a higher percentile rank at 90 versus the 8060S's 87, meaning it sits above a slightly larger share of all GPUs in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has an average benchmark score of 69870, while the AMD Radeon 8060S has an average of 55757. The WX 8200's average is higher because the 8060S includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162, which significantly lowers its mean despite strong Geekbench results.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon 8060S scores 84626 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.6% higher than the WX 8200's 69774. The delta percentage indicates the WX 8200 trails by that margin in this specific test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8060S uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 8060S lists ray tracing cores, with 40 RT cores. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply. The 8060S has a 55 W TDP, is an integrated graphics product with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU is newer and still in production?

A: The Radeon 8060S was released on January 5, 2025, and has an active production status. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 was released on August 12, 2018, and is listed as end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on GCN 5.0 with the Vega 10 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD Radeon 8060S uses RDNA 3.5 with the Strix Halo chip, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 4 nm represents a major manufacturing advancement, and the database shows the 8060S achieving much higher boost clocks at a fraction of the power draw.

The WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The 8060S has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and also 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the 8060S achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 185.6 GPixel/s and 464.0 GTexel/s versus the WX 8200's 96.00 GPixel/s and 336.0 GTexel/s. This is a direct result of the much higher boost clock, 2900 MHz for the 8060S versus 1500 MHz for the WX 8200.

Ray tracing is another major architectural divider. The 8060S includes 40 ray tracing cores, while the WX 8200 has none. The 8060S also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the WX 8200 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support differs as well: the 8060S supports Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 8200 stops at Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

The transistor counts tell an interesting story. The WX 8200 packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The 8060S has a smaller 308 mm² die, but its transistor count is listed as unknown in the database, so a direct density comparison cannot be made. The die size difference itself is notable: the older 14 nm Vega 10 die is significantly larger than the newer 4 nm Strix Halo die.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ sharply. The WX 8200 has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz. The 8060S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 8060S boost clock is nearly double that of the WX 8200.

Memory is the most fundamental specification gap. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8060S uses system shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth both listed as system dependent. This means the 8060S's memory performance is variable and depends on the host platform, while the WX 8200 has fixed, dedicated memory resources.

Compute throughput also favors the 8060S. The 8060S delivers 14.85 TFLOPS of FP32 and 14.85 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS of FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The 8060S is faster in FP32, while the WX 8200 has a higher FP16 figure, but that is achieved through a 2:1 rate, meaning it processes FP16 at twice the rate of FP32.

Power and physical specifications are polar opposites. The WX 8200 is a dual-slot card with a 230 W TDP, 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested 550 W power supply. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The 8060S is an integrated graphics processor with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no listed dimensions. It is designed for portable devices, with display outputs described as portable device dependent.

The bus interface also differs: the WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 8060S uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors on the WX 8200, versus portable device dependent on the 8060S.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the AMD Radeon 8060S wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the 8060S scores 84626 against the WX 8200's 69774. The delta percentage is -17.6%, meaning the WX 8200 trails by 17.6%. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented API that is widely used for machine learning and general GPU compute tasks. The 8060S's advantage here is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput and much higher boost clock.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 8060S scores 80483 against the WX 8200's 69076. The delta percentage is -14.2%, again favoring the 8060S. Vulkan is a cross-platform graphics and compute API, and the 8060S's larger lead in OpenCL compared to Vulkan suggests its architectural advantages are most pronounced in compute-heavy workloads.

The WX 8200 does not win a single head-to-head test. Its win count in the head-to-head benchmarks is zero, while the 8060S wins both. However, the WX 8200's average benchmark score of 69870 is higher than the 8060S's 55757, because the 8060S's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162 pulls its average down dramatically. This 3DMark result, which has no corresponding WX 8200 score in the head-to-head set, is the reason the average scores and the head-to-head results tell different stories.

The nearest rival data further illuminates the standing of each card. The WX 8200 sits within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (which scores 70829), within 0.4% of the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70140), within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69986), and is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000). The 8060S is within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698), within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (56083), 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828), and 2.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54247).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8060S wins in raw compute tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 84626 and Vulkan score of 80483 both exceed the WX 8200's corresponding results. It also has a major power efficiency advantage on paper: a 55 W TDP versus 230 W, which is a 175 W difference in the recorded specifications. This makes the 8060S the appropriate choice for portable devices, integrated graphics implementations, and systems where power draw is a primary constraint. Its 40 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it the more modern option for gaming and graphics workloads that use these features. The 8060S also has the higher boost clock at 2900 MHz versus 1500 MHz, and higher pixel and texture rates.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins in the context of dedicated memory and workstation integration. Its 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed resource, whereas the 8060S's memory performance is system dependent. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive and require predictable memory behavior, the WX 8200's dedicated memory architecture is the stronger foundation. It also has a higher percentile rank, sitting at the 90th percentile versus the 8060S's 87th percentile. Its FP16 throughput of 21.50 TFLOPS exceeds the 8060S's 14.85 TFLOPS, though it is achieved through a 2:1 ratio rather than a 1:1 ratio. The WX 8200's four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are explicitly documented, whereas the 8060S's display outputs depend on the host device. For users who need a traditional dual-slot desktop workstation card with PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity and a known physical footprint, the WX 8200 remains a viable option from the data.

The verdict is straightforward from the recorded measurements: the 8060S for compute speed, modern features, and efficiency, the WX 8200 for dedicated bandwidth, workstation ergonomics, and higher overall percentile standing.