AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two workstation cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 128,580 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 manages 69,774 points. That is an 84.3% advantage for the newer card, a margin that places them in entirely different performance tiers. The Vulkan results widen the gap further: the PRO V620 reaches 144,364 points against 69,076 for the WX 8200, translating to a 109% lead. In both shared benchmark tests, the PRO V620 wins outright, and the database records two wins for the PRO V620 and zero for the WX 8200.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The PRO V620 posts an average of 136,472 points, while the WX 8200 averages 69,870. The PRO V620 sits at the 96th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 90th percentile for the WX 8200. While the percentile gap may seem modest at first glance, the underlying scores reveal a chasm: the PRO V620 delivers nearly double the compute throughput in the tests where both were measured. The WX 8200 does have one additional benchmark result in the database, a Metal score of 70,759, but the PRO V620 has no corresponding Metal entry, so no direct comparison is possible on that API.

When examining the nearest rivals for context, the PRO V620's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo with an average score of 135,774, a mere 0.5% behind. The NVIDIA A10M trails by 0.9%, and the RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits 0.9% behind as well. These are tight margins, suggesting the PRO V620 is positioned within a cluster of high-end cards where small percentage differences separate them. The WX 8200, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, which scores 69,986, just 0.2% higher. The RTX A3000 Mobile is 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE is 1.4% ahead. The WX 8200's neighborhood is far less competitive, and the differences there are measured in fractions of a percent against cards from different generations and market segments.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies from AMD. The PRO V620 uses the Navi 21 chip built on TSMC's 7 nm process node, packing 26,800 million transistors into a die size of 520 mm². The transistor density works out to 51.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The WX 8200 relies on the much older Vega 10 chip fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process node. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter in terms of density per unit area. The PRO V620 benefits from a newer node and a higher transistor count, which contributes to its substantial performance advantage.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The PRO V620 features 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, complemented by 72 ray tracing cores. The WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores at all. The PRO V620's inclusion of dedicated ray tracing hardware is a notable feature that the older card entirely lacks, and this impacts workloads that leverage ray-traced rendering. Pixel throughput scales accordingly: the PRO V620 delivers 281.6 GPixel/s, while the WX 8200 manages 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture rates follow the same pattern, with 633.6 GTexel/s for the PRO V620 versus 336.0 GTexel/s for the WX 8200.

Memory subsystems reveal an interesting twist. Both cards offer identical bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s, but they achieve it through very different means. The PRO V620 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 256-bit bus, running at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate. The WX 8200 uses only 8 GB of HBM2 memory, but on a massive 2048-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective data rate. The PRO V620 has four times the capacity, which matters for large datasets, while the WX 8200's wide bus compensates for its slower memory clock to reach the same bandwidth. The PRO V620 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support differs meaningfully. The PRO V620 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set and the higher Vulkan version on the PRO V620 give it access to more modern rendering features. The PRO V620 has no display outputs, making it a compute-focused card, while the WX 8200 includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs for direct display connectivity.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear choice for most workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 by 84.3% in OpenCL and 109% in Vulkan, the two tests where both cards share. The PRO V620 also offers 32 GB of memory versus 8 GB, a 4x capacity advantage, and includes ray tracing cores that the WX 8200 lacks entirely. Its position at the 96th percentile of all GPUs compared to the WX 8200's 90th percentile, combined with an average score nearly double that of the older card reinforces the verdict.

The WX 8200 retains relevance in scenarios where display outputs matter. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide direct video output directly from the card, which the PRO V620 cannot do because it has no outputs. The WX 8200 also has a lower power profile at 230 W compared to 300 W for the PRO V620, along with a lower suggested PSU rating of 550 W for the WX 8200 versus 700 W for the PRO V620. Its PCIe 3.0 interface, while older, remains compatible with a wide range of systems. The WX 8200's launch MSRP was 999 USD, a single data point that can be noted once. The PRO V620 does not have a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

For compute-intensive professional workloads, rendering tasks, machine learning inference, large data processing, and any workload where memory capacity is critical, the PRO V620 is the superior option based on the recorded measurements. The data shows no benchmark where the WX 8200 wins, which makes the verdict straightforward for users prioritizing raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on every major specification field except bandwidth, where both list 512.0 GB/s exactly equal bandwidth to the gigabyte. Key differences include the process node: 7 nm for the PRO V620 versus 14 nm for the WX 8200. Transistor count is 26,800 million versus 280 million fewer at 12,500 million for the WX 8200. Die size is 520 mm² for the PRO V620 and 495 mm² for the WX 8200. Memory size differs at 32 GB for the PRO V620 and 8 GB for the WX 8200, with memory type GDDR6 for the PRO V620 and HBM2 for the WX 8200. Bus width is 256-bit for the PRO V620 and 2048-bit for the WX 8200.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the PRO V620 has a base clock of 1825 MHz and boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the WX 8200 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate for the PRO V620, versus 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective for the WX 8200. Shading units are 4,608 for the PRO V620 and 3,584 for WX 8200, TMUs at 288 versus 224, ROPs at 128 versus 64. RT cores are 72 for the PRO V620, none available for the WX 8200.

Compute throughput values are starkly different: FP32 output is 20.28 TFLOPS for the PRO V620 versus 10.8 TFLOPS for the WX 8200, and fp16 performance is 40.55 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio in both cases 2:1 ratio applies. TDP is 300 W for the PRO V620 versus 230 W for the WX 8200, power connectors are 2x 8-pin for the PRO V620 and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin for WX 8200. Suggested PSU figures are 700 W for the PRO V620 and 550 W for WX 8200. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the PRO V620 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for WX 8200.

Display outputs are the biggest practical difference: the PRO V620 has no outputs at all, while the WX 8200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The PRO V620 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 8200 has DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Dimensions differ slightly in height: the PRO V620 is 120 mm (4.7 inches) tall, the WX 8200 is 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, both at 267 mm (10.5 inches) length. Width is 50 mm (2 inches) for the PRO V620, no width recorded for the WX 8200. The PRO V620's release date is 2021-11-03, while the WX 8200 was released on 2018-08-12, a gap of roughly three years.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 128,580 points, beating the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200's 69,774 points by 84.3%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: The PRO V620 scores 144,364 points in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the WX 8200's 69,076 points, a 109% lead for the PRO V620.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both cards list 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, though the PRO V620 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Can either card output video to displays?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD Radeon PRO V620 has no display outputs, making it a compute-focused card.

Q: What DirectX versions do the cards support?

A: The PRO V620 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 respectively.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The PRO V620 contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die at 7 nm, while the WX 8200 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die at 14 nm.

Where Each One Wins

The PRO V620 wins in compute-heavy workloads in OpenCL and Vulkan APIs, with percentile ranking of 96th versus 90th, and a raw performance nearly double the WX 8200. It suits large memory loads due to 32 GB capacity, ray-traced rendering tasks with 72 RT cores, and modern API features including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. Its higher transistor count, newer 7 nm process, and faster clocks, 1825 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, position it for demanding professional workloads.

The WX 8200 wins in display-connected use cases due to its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. It is the only card of the two that can drive monitors directly from the GPU without a separate display adapter. Its lower power draw of 230 W versus 300 W and lower suggested PSU of 550 W versus 700 W also make it easier to integrate into existing systems with smaller power budgets. Its PCIe 3.0 interface, while older, ensures broad compatibility with systems that lack PCIe 4.0 support.

The WX 8200 has a Metal benchmark score of 70759 points in the database, a score of 70,759, which no equivalent measurement exists for the PRO V620, and its Vulkan and OpenCL scores, though lower, remain functional for less demanding tasks. The PRO V620 has no recorded Metal test, so users working within Metal-based ecosystems may need to consider the WX 8200's measured result as the only data point available.