AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins all three head-to-head Geekbench tests, but the margin varies significantly by workload. In Geekbench Metal, the WX 8200 scores 70,759 against 63,145 for the Vega 56, a 12.1% advantage. The OpenCL result is nearly identical in proportional terms, with the WX 8200 posting 69,774 versus 61,930, a 12.7% lead. The Vulkan test is far tighter: the WX 8200’s 69,076 beats the Vega 56’s 66,004 by only 4.7%, suggesting that the gap narrows substantially when API overhead and compute dispatch patterns favor the older design.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the WX 8200 sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 56 sits at the 89th percentile — a one-percentile separation that understates the raw score difference. The WX 8200’s average benchmark score of 69,870 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 0.4% of the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140). It actually edges out the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000) by 1.3%, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829) leads it by 1.4%. The Vega 56’s average of 63,693 is nearly 9% lower than the WX 8200’s average, and its nearest rivals cluster tightly: the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775) trails by just 0.1%, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830) by 0.2%, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (63,842) by 0.2%, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212) by 0.8%.

The WX 8200’s best relative performance comes in OpenCL, where its 12.7% delta over the Vega 56 is the largest of the three tests. The smallest delta is in Vulkan, where the 4.7% gap indicates that the Vega 56’s lower compute throughput is partially offset by architectural efficiencies in that API. Across all three tests, the WX 8200 demonstrates a consistent, if uneven, performance advantage — enough to classify it as the faster card in every measured scenario, but not by a uniform margin.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental silicon: the Vega 10 chip built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The architecture is GCN 5.0 for both, and both expose identical API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The shading unit count is identical at 3,584, as are the texture mapping units (224) and render output units (64). Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The differences emerge in clock speeds and memory configuration. The WX 8200 runs a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz, while the Vega 56 operates at 1138 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost. That 250 MHz boost advantage translates directly into higher throughput figures: the WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), versus 8.960 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.92 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) for the Vega 56. The pixel rate follows suit: 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 8200 against 80.00 GPixel/s for the Vega 56, and texture rate is 336.0 GTexel/s versus 280.0 GTexel/s.

Memory is another point of divergence. Both cards use 8 GB of HBM2 across a 2048-bit bus, but the WX 8200’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 56’s memory runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective), producing 402.4 GB/s — a 27% bandwidth deficit that compounds the clock speed disadvantage. The power envelope also differs: the WX 8200 is rated at 230 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the Vega 56 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a 210 W TDP. The WX 8200 requires a 550 W suggested PSU; the Vega 56 has no such recommendation because it is not a discrete card.

Physical dimensions reflect their intended use cases. The WX 8200 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Vega 56 has no listed dimensions and provides 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The WX 8200 is part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) generation and was released on 2018-08-12, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro GCN and a successor of Radeon Pro Vega. The Vega 56 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation and was released on 2017-08-13, roughly one year earlier. Both are end-of-life products, and both use the PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The WX 8200 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set, so the practical question is not whether it wins, but where its advantage is most pronounced — and where the Vega 56’s closer margins suggest it can hold its own. The biggest win for the WX 8200 is in OpenCL, where its 12.7% lead reflects the full impact of its higher boost clock and greater memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive or compute-bound will see the largest gap. The Metal test is nearly as favorable, with a 12.1% advantage, indicating that Apple’s compute framework also scales well with the WX 8200’s higher throughput.

The Vulkan test is the Vega 56’s relative bright spot. At 4.7% behind, it is far closer than the other two tests, suggesting that Vulkan’s lower overhead and explicit control allow the Vega 56 to extract more of its theoretical performance. For applications that rely primarily on Vulkan, the Vega 56 will feel much closer to the WX 8200 than the raw specifications imply. That said, it still loses — there is no benchmark in the data where the Vega 56 comes out ahead.

For use-case planning, the WX 8200 is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference that leverage OpenCL or Metal. Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 make it particularly strong for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Vega 56, meanwhile, is competitive enough in Vulkan-based workflows — think game development or real-time graphics preview — that the 4.7% gap may be acceptable in exchange for its lower power draw (210 W vs 230 W) and integrated form factor. The Vega 56’s lack of power connectors and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for systems where a discrete card is impractical, making it the only option in that constrained form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins all three head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan) with deltas of 12.1%, 12.7%, and 4.7% respectively. Its average benchmark score is 69,870 versus 63,693 for the Vega 56.

Q: How close is the Vulkan performance between the two cards?

A: The Vulkan gap is the smallest of the three tests: the WX 8200 scores 69,076 against 66,004 for the Vega 56, a 4.7% difference. This is significantly closer than the 12.1% Metal gap or the 12.7% OpenCL gap.

Q: Do both cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes, both are built on the Vega 10 chip using the GCN 5.0 architecture, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die at 14 nm. Both have 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The WX 8200 has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Vega 56 has 402.4 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, but the WX 8200 runs its memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) for the Vega 56.

Q: Which card has higher power requirements?

A: The WX 8200 is rated at 230 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The Vega 56 is an IGP with a 210 W TDP and no power connectors.

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

A: The WX 8200’s average score of 69,870 is 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). The Vega 56’s average of 63,693 is 0.1% below the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212).

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the faster card in every measured benchmark, and its advantage is substantial in OpenCL and Metal workloads. Its 12.7% lead in OpenCL and 12.1% lead in Metal are decisive, and even its narrowest win — 4.7% in Vulkan — still puts it ahead. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance, the WX 8200 is the correct pick, provided the system can accommodate its dual-slot design, 230 W TDP, and 550 W PSU requirement.

The Vega 56 is not without a niche. Its Vulkan result is close enough that users heavily invested in Vulkan-based pipelines would see only a modest performance penalty. Its integrated form factor, lack of power connectors, and lower 210 W TDP make it viable in systems where a discrete dual-slot card cannot fit. However, the Vega 56’s average score places it at the 89th percentile versus the WX 8200’s 90th, and its nearest rivals — the RX 7600M and RX 9060 XT LP — are within 0.2%, meaning it is not a standout even in its own performance class.

The WX 8200’s launch MSRP was 999 USD, and it sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE and 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. The Vega 56 has no listed launch MSRP and trails the WX 8200 by roughly 9% in average score. For users who can support the WX 8200’s physical and power requirements, the benchmark data leaves no reason to choose the Vega 56. For users constrained to an IGP form factor, the Vega 56 is the only option in this comparison — and its Vulkan performance makes that compromise more palatable than the other benchmark results might suggest.