AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two AMD workstation cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92,488, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 trails at 69,774. That is a 32.6% advantage for the MI60. The Vulkan results follow the same pattern, with the MI60 posting 92,444 against the WX 8200's 69,076 — a 33.8% lead. Both head-to-head matchups go to the MI60, and the WX 8200 does not win a single benchmark comparison.

Context from the nearest rival lists reinforces this gap. The MI60's average benchmark score of 92,466 places it just 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) and 1.5% ahead of the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134). Meanwhile, the WX 8200's average of 69,870 sits within a narrow band of its own rivals: it is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 0.4% behind the RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140). The MI60 is closer to modern NVIDIA workstation parts, while the WX 8200 is effectively at parity with older or lower-tier competitors.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The MI60 sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 8200 lands in the 90th percentile. That three-point gap may sound modest, but when translated to raw compute, the MI60 delivers roughly a third more performance in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. For compute-heavy tasks, this is not a small edge — it is the difference between finishing a render or simulation in three hours versus four.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's GCN architecture. The MI60 uses the Vega 20 chip built on GCN 5.1, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. The WX 8200 uses the older Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. That process shrink is significant: the MI60 packs 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.0 million per square millimeter. The WX 8200 has 12,500 million transistors spread across a much larger 495 mm² die, for a density of just 25.3 million per square millimeter. The MI60 crams more transistors into a smaller area, which translates directly to higher compute density.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The MI60 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The WX 8200 steps down to 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs. The MI60's pixel rate is 115.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 8200. Texture rate is 460.8 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. In raw floating-point throughput, the MI60 hits 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the WX 8200 manages 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Both cards run the same API set — DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 — so software compatibility is not a differentiator.

Memory is another major split. The MI60 carries 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, for 512.0 GB/s. That is a 4x capacity advantage and a 2x bandwidth advantage for the MI60. Both run memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the wider bus on the MI60 changes the game for large datasets. The PCIe interface also differs: the MI60 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. For workloads that stream data from system memory, that newer bus helps the MI60 further.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory, and how much more?

A: The MI60 has 32 GB of HBM2, while the WX 8200 has 8 GB. That is a 4x capacity difference, and the MI60's 4096-bit bus provides 1.02 TB/s bandwidth versus 512.0 GB/s on the WX 8200's 2048-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: No. The MI60 uses GCN 5.1 on the Vega 20 chip, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. The WX 8200 uses GCN 5.0 on the Vega 10 chip, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process.

Q: What is the performance gap in the available benchmarks?

A: The MI60 leads by 32.6% in Geekbench OpenCL (92,488 vs 69,774) and by 33.8% in Geekbench Vulkan (92,444 vs 69,076). The MI60 wins both head-to-head tests.

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

A: The MI60's average score of 92,466 is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 and 1.5% ahead of the RTX A4500 Mobile. The WX 8200's average of 69,870 is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and 0.4% behind the RTX A3000 Mobile.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The MI60 has 4,096 shading units, compared to 3,584 on the WX 8200. The MI60 also has 256 TMUs versus 224, though both have 64 ROPs.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. There is no API-level difference between them.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 is the stronger card by a wide margin. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 30%, has four times the memory, double the memory bandwidth, a newer architecture, a smaller process node, and more shading units. Its average benchmark score of 92,466 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, and it edges out the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 0.9%. The WX 8200, by contrast, sits at 69,870 average and the 90th percentile, trading blows with the Quadro P6000 and RTX A3000 Mobile.

Who should pick which? If the workload involves large datasets, GPU compute, or any task where memory capacity and bandwidth matter, the MI60 is the only choice from this pair. The 32 GB frame buffer alone justifies it for many professional workflows. The WX 8200 still has a place for lighter compute duties or situations where the 230 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU are constraints — the MI60 requires 300 W and a 700 W PSU. But on pure performance, the MI60 is ahead by roughly a third, and that gap is consistent across both OpenCL and Vulkan.

Neither card is current — both are end-of-life products. The WX 8200 launched in August 2018 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The MI60 launched a few months later, in November 2018, and has no launch MSRP listed. For anyone choosing between these two on the used market or in existing systems, the MI60 is the clear performance winner, while the WX 8200 offers four mini-DisplayPort outputs versus the MI60's single connector.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 |

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

| Chip | Vega 20 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | GCN 5.1 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 13,230 million | 12,500 million |

| Die size | 331 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor density | 40.0M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1200 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1800 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory size | 32 GB HBM2 | 8 GB HBM2 |

| Memory bus | 4096 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 1.02 TB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 4096 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 256 | 224 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 115.2 GPixel/s | 96.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 460.8 GTexel/s | 336.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 14.75 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 29.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 230 W |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release date | 2018-11-17 | 2018-08-12 |

| Production status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

Where Each One Wins

The MI60 wins in every compute benchmark and every raw specification that matters for GPU-accelerated workloads. Its 32.6% OpenCL lead and 33.8% Vulkan lead are decisive. The larger memory pool — 32 GB versus 8 GB — makes it suitable for datasets that would not fit on the WX 8200. The 1.02 TB/s bandwidth means it can feed those shading units faster, and the 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 throughput gives it a clear edge in number-crunching tasks. The newer PCIe 4.0 interface also helps when transferring data to and from the host system.

The WX 8200 has fewer wins, but they exist. It draws 230 W versus 300 W, so it is easier on power and thermals. Its suggested PSU is 550 W versus 700 W, which matters in existing systems with smaller power supplies. It also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs compared to the MI60's single output, making it the better choice for multi-display setups. Its smaller 8 GB memory footprint may be sufficient for lighter tasks, and its 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 is still respectable for a card in the 90th percentile.

The use-case split is straightforward. For compute, rendering, simulation, machine learning, or any workload that scales with memory and throughput, the MI60 is the superior tool. For a workstation that needs multiple display outputs, has power constraints, or handles lighter compute duties, the WX 8200 remains viable. The MI60's 93rd percentile ranking versus the WX 8200's 90th is the summary: both are above average, but the MI60 is in a higher tier entirely.