AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are both professional workstation GPUs built on the same Vega 10 silicon and GCN 5.0 architecture, yet they occupy distinctly different positions in AMD’s professional lineup. The WX 8200 is a dual-slot, actively cooled board designed for standalone workstations, while the Vega 48 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) intended for portable Mac systems. Benchmark data shows the WX 8200 winning all three head-to-head comparisons, but the margin varies dramatically by API, revealing where the hardware differences matter most.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive separation between these two cards appears in the OpenCL workload. The WX 8200 scores 69,774 against the Vega 48’s 53,757, a 29.8% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and reflects the substantial gap in raw compute resources: the WX 8200 carries 3,584 shading units versus 3,072 on the Vega 48, and its FP32 throughput of 10.75 TFLOPS is roughly 46% higher than the Vega 48’s 7.373 TFLOPS. OpenCL tends to scale well with shader count and clock speed, so this result is consistent with the specification sheet.

Vulkan shows a narrower but still commanding lead for the WX 8200, which posts 69,076 against 57,653 — a 19.8% difference. Vulkan’s lower-level overhead tends to expose memory bandwidth and texture throughput more directly, and here the WX 8200’s 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 336.0 GTexel/s texture rate outclass the Vega 48’s 402.4 GB/s and 230.4 GTexel/s. The Vega 48’s memory clock of 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) is well below the WX 8200’s 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), which explains part of the gap in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The closest contest comes in Metal, where the WX 8200 scores 70,759 versus 69,010 — a mere 2.5% edge. Metal is the native graphics API on Apple platforms, and the Vega 48 is explicitly part of the Radeon Pro Mac generation, suggesting its driver and hardware configuration are tuned for this environment. Despite having fewer shading units and lower clocks (the Vega 48 lists no base or boost clock, but its FP32 and pixel rates imply a much lower operating frequency), the Vega 48 nearly matches the WX 8200 in Metal. This may be due to the IGP’s direct connection to system memory and optimized macOS drivers, though the fact pack does not provide clock speeds to confirm this directly.

Across all three benchmarks, the WX 8200 wins 3-0. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: 69,870 for the WX 8200 versus 60,140 for the Vega 48. The WX 8200’s percentile rank of 90 places it in the top decile of all GPUs, while the Vega 48 sits at 88 — a smaller gap than the raw scores suggest, indicating that the Vega 48 is still competitive against the broader GPU landscape.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 5.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die is identical in transistor count (12,500 million) and size (495 mm²), with a transistor density of 25.3M / mm². This means the architectural differences are not in the silicon itself but in how AMD configured the chip for each product.

The WX 8200 uses a fully enabled or higher-binned configuration of Vega 10, with 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Vega 48, by contrast, has 3,072 shading units and 192 TMUs, while keeping the same 64 ROPs. This is a 16% reduction in shader count and a 14% reduction in texture units, which directly explains the WX 8200’s higher texture rate (336.0 vs 230.4 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (96.00 vs 76.80 GPixel/s). The ROP count being identical means both cards can drive the same number of pixels per clock, but the WX 8200’s higher clock speed (1200 MHz base / 1500 MHz boost) gives it a significant pixel throughput advantage.

Memory configuration differs meaningfully. Both use 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, but the WX 8200 runs its memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 48 runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) for 402.4 GB/s — a 27% bandwidth deficit for the Vega 48. This is a notable difference because HBM2’s wide bus is designed to deliver bandwidth, and the Vega 48’s lower clock undermines that advantage.

The most significant architectural divergence is in power and physical design. The WX 8200 is a dual-slot card with a 230 W TDP, requiring a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Vega 48 is an IGP with no TDP listed, no power connectors, and no dimensions — it is designed to be integrated into a portable device, likely a MacBook Pro. This means the Vega 48’s performance is constrained by thermal and power envelopes of a laptop chassis, while the WX 8200 has the headroom of a desktop workstation. The WX 8200 also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the Vega 48’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host laptop’s connectors.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so API compatibility is identical. The WX 8200 was released on 2018-08-12, while the Vega 48 followed on 2019-03-18 — a seven-month gap that suggests the Vega 48 was designed later for mobile integration, possibly using a more power-efficient bin of the same chip.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance?

A: The WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the Vega 48 provides 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.75 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). This is a 46% and 46% advantage for the WX 8200, respectively.

Q: Are the memory bandwidth differences significant?

A: Yes. The WX 8200’s HBM2 runs at 1000 MHz with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 48’s HBM2 runs at 786 MHz with 402.4 GB/s. The WX 8200 has 27% more bandwidth, which directly impacts OpenCL and Vulkan performance.

Q: Why does the Vega 48 perform nearly as well as the WX 8200 in Metal?

A: In the geekbench_metal test, the WX 8200 scores 70,759 and the Vega 48 scores 69,010, a 2.5% difference. The Vega 48 is part of the Radeon Pro Mac generation, suggesting its drivers and configuration are optimized for Apple’s Metal API, despite having fewer shading units and lower memory clock.

Q: Can the Vega 48 be upgraded or replaced?

A: The Vega 48 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. It is soldered into a portable device and is not user-serviceable, unlike the WX 8200 which is a dual-slot card with standard power connectors.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The WX 8200 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with a dual-slot width. The Vega 48 has no listed dimensions because it is an IGP, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and fits within the laptop’s motherboard.

Q: Which card has higher pixel throughput?

A: The WX 8200 achieves 96.00 GPixel/s versus the Vega 48’s 76.80 GPixel/s, a 25% advantage. This is driven by the WX 8200’s higher clock speeds, as both cards have 64 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the WX 8200 outperforms the Vega 48 in every benchmark recorded, with deltas ranging from 2.5% in Metal to 29.8% in OpenCL. The WX 8200’s higher shader count, faster memory clock, and higher operating frequencies give it a decisive lead in compute-heavy and bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its 90th percentile ranking versus the Vega 48’s 88th percentile confirms that the WX 8200 is the stronger GPU by overall benchmark average.

However, the choice is not simply about raw performance. The Vega 48 is an IGP with no power connectors, no dimensions, and no TDP — it exists solely for portable Mac systems where the WX 8200’s 230 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 267 mm length are physically impossible to accommodate. The WX 8200 is an end-of-life desktop workstation card with a 999 USD launch MSRP, while the Vega 48 is also end-of-life but serves a completely different form factor.

For a user building a desktop workstation with PCIe slots, the WX 8200 is the clear choice based on benchmark data alone. For a user with a portable Mac system, the Vega 48 is the only option that fits, and its Metal performance (within 2.5% of the WX 8200) shows that it is not a severe compromise for Apple-specific workflows. The Vega 48’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (within 0.3% average score), which reflects its competitive standing in its niche, even if it cannot match the WX 8200 directly.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 |

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

| Chip | Vega 10 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) | Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1200 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1500 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 2048 bit | 2048 bit |

| Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 402.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 224 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 96.00 GPixel/s | 76.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.0 GTexel/s | 230.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.75 TFLOPS | 7.373 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | null |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | null |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | null |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2019-03-18 |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | null |

Where Each One Wins

The WX 8200 wins decisively in OpenCL (29.8% ahead) and Vulkan (19.8% ahead) workloads, making it the superior choice for compute-intensive tasks such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference that leverage these APIs. Its higher texture rate (336.0 vs 230.4 GTexel/s) and bandwidth (512.0 vs 402.4 GB/s) give it a clear edge in texture-heavy 3D scenes and large dataset processing. The WX 8200 also wins in Metal, but only by 2.5%, so for macOS users who primarily run Metal-optimized applications, the difference is marginal.

The Vega 48 wins in portability and integration. As an IGP with no power connectors and no dimensions, it fits into portable Mac devices where the WX 8200 cannot be installed. Its Metal score of 69,010 is within 2.5% of the WX 8200, meaning that for Apple-native graphics workloads, the Vega 48 offers nearly the same performance in a fraction of the physical footprint. The Vega 48 also has a later release date (2019-03-18 vs 2018-08-12), suggesting it benefits from more mature drivers. No benchmark in the fact pack shows the Vega 48 winning outright, but its competitive Metal showing and its ability to operate within a laptop thermal envelope represent its practical advantages.