AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 are two end-of-life professional graphics cards built on the same Vega 10 silicon, but they target different segments of the workstation market. The data shows the Pro Vega 64 wins all three head-to-head Geekbench tests, yet the WX 8200 counters with higher boost clocks, higher memory bandwidth, and a lower TDP. This creates an interesting split: the Pro Vega 64 leads in raw compute benchmarks, while the WX 8200 offers architectural refinements that might appeal to specific workloads. The Pro Vega 64 holds a 91st percentile rank versus the WX 8200's 90th, a narrow margin that suggests the two are closer than their benchmark scores might imply.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow victory for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 in synthetic compute workloads. It wins all three head-to-head tests: Geekbench Metal by 1.6%, Geekbench OpenCL by 1.9%, and Geekbench Vulkan by a more substantial 7.4%. Its average benchmark score of 72,379 exceeds the WX 8200's 69,870 by roughly 3.6%. However, the WX 8200 is not without merit — it draws 20W less power (230W vs 250W), offers 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 402.4 GB/s, and boosts to 1500 MHz compared to 1350 MHz. For users prioritizing raw Geekbench results, the Pro Vega 64 is the data-backed choice. For those who value memory throughput, power efficiency, or physical form factor, the WX 8200 presents compelling counterpoints. The Pro Vega 64's 16 GB memory doubles the WX 8200's 8 GB, which could be decisive for large datasets. The WX 8200's launch MSRP was 999 USD. Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same Vega 10 chip, GCN 5.0 architecture, 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, 12,500 million transistors, and a 495 mm² die size. The transistor density is identical at 25.3M per mm². The core configurations differ significantly: the Pro Vega 64 packs 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the WX 8200 scales down to 3584 shading units and 224 TMUs while keeping 64 ROPs. This 512-shading-unit deficit explains why the WX 8200 trails in most compute tests despite its higher clock speeds. Clock behavior diverges notably — the Pro Vega 64 runs a 1250 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost, while the WX 8200 starts lower at 1200 MHz but boosts higher to 1500 MHz. Memory configurations differ in both capacity and speed: the Pro Vega 64 has 16 GB HBM2 at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) delivering 402.4 GB/s, whereas the WX 8200 has 8 GB HBM2 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) delivering 512.0 GB/s. Both use a 2048-bit bus. The WX 8200's memory operates at roughly 27% higher effective speed, which partially compensates for its halved capacity. Physical differences include the Pro Vega 64's IGP slot width versus the WX 8200's dual-slot design, and the WX 8200's 267 mm length with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus the Pro Vega 64's portable-device-dependent outputs. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins decisively with a score of 74,174 versus 69,076 for the WX 8200, a 7.4% advantage. This is the largest margin between the two across all tested benchmarks.

Q: Does the WX 8200 have any memory advantage despite having less capacity?

A: Yes. The WX 8200 delivers 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 402.4 GB/s for the Pro Vega 64, a 27% improvement. Its memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) compared to 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) on the Pro Vega 64.

Q: Are these cards the same architecture?

A: Both use the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, 14 nm process, 12,500 million transistors, and 495 mm² die size. The primary differences are in shading units, clocks, and memory configuration.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The WX 8200 has a 230W TDP versus 250W for the Pro Vega 64, making the WX 8200 8% more power-efficient. The WX 8200 also requires a 550W suggested PSU and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, while the Pro Vega 64 has no power connectors listed.

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

A: The Pro Vega 64's closest rival is the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal with a 0.4% delta, and it edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6650M by 0.9%. The WX 8200 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and trails the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile by 0.4%.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity for large workloads?

A: The Pro Vega 64 offers 16 GB of HBM2, exactly double the WX 8200's 8 GB. This capacity difference could be critical for rendering or simulation workloads that exceed 8 GB.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specifications. The Pro Vega 64 has 4096 shading units versus 3584 on the WX 8200, and 256 TMUs versus 224. Both have 64 ROPs. Clock speeds differ: the Pro Vega 64 runs at 1250 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost, while the WX 8200 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory capacity is 16 GB on the Pro Vega 64 versus 8 GB on the WX 8200. Memory clock is 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Bandwidth favors the WX 8200 at 512.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s. Pixel rate is higher on the WX 8200 at 96.00 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s, while texture rate is slightly higher on the Pro Vega 64 at 345.6 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 11.06 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 22.12 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS, both favoring the Pro Vega 64. TDP is 250W versus 230W. The Pro Vega 64 has an IGP slot width, while the WX 8200 is dual-slot. Power connectors: none on the Pro Vega 64 versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin on the WX 8200. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the Pro Vega 64 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the WX 8200. The WX 8200 has dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height. The WX 8200's generation is listed as "Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200)" while the Pro Vega 64 is "Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series)".

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent but uneven pattern. In Geekbench Metal, the Pro Vega 64 scores 71,868 against 70,759 for the WX 8200, a 1.6% margin. This is the closest of the three tests. Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar 1.9% edge with scores of 71,094 versus 69,774. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro Vega 64 scores 74,174 against 69,076 — a 7.4% advantage that suggests Vulkan workloads particularly favor the Pro Vega 64's higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput. The Pro Vega 64's FP32 output of 11.06 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS correlates with these wins. Interestingly, the WX 8200's higher boost clock (1500 MHz vs 1350 MHz) and greater memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs 402.4 GB/s) do not translate into benchmark victories. The WX 8200 does win on pixel rate (96.00 GPixel/s vs 86.40 GPixel/s), which could matter for fill-rate-bound operations. The Pro Vega 64's average benchmark score of 72,379 places it 3.6% above the WX 8200's 69,870. When compared to external rivals, the Pro Vega 64 sits 0.4% above the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and 0.9% above the AMD Radeon RX 6650M, while the WX 8200 is 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins decisively in synthetic compute benchmarks across all three APIs tested. Its 4096 shading units provide a 14.3% advantage over the WX 8200's 3584, which translates directly to higher FP32 (11.06 TFLOPS vs 10.75 TFLOPS) and FP16 (22.12 TFLOPS vs 21.50 TFLOPS) throughput. The 16 GB memory capacity is double the WX 8200's 8 GB, making the Pro Vega 64 the better choice for workloads that exceed 8 GB working sets — particularly relevant for large 3D scenes, high-resolution textures, or machine learning datasets. Its 91st percentile ranking versus 90th for the WX 8200 confirms its slight overall superiority. The Pro Vega 64 also has a higher texture rate (345.6 GTexel/s vs 336.0 GTexel/s), benefiting texture-heavy applications.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins on memory bandwidth with 512.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s, a 27% advantage that could benefit bandwidth-bound workloads like certain compute kernels or multi-sample anti-aliasing. Its higher pixel rate (96.00 GPixel/s vs 86.40 GPixel/s) suggests an edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios. The 230W TDP versus 250W makes it more power-efficient, and its dual-slot design with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provides immediate multi-display connectivity compared to the Pro Vega 64's portable-device-dependent outputs. The WX 8200's higher boost clock of 1500 MHz versus 1350 MHz could yield better performance in lightly-threaded or latency-sensitive workloads. Its predecessor/successor lineage (predecessor: Radeon Pro GCN, successor: Radeon Pro Vega) indicates it occupies a distinct product generation. For users constrained by physical space, the WX 8200's specified dimensions (267 mm length, 111 mm height) provide clarity that the Pro Vega 64 lacks. The WX 8200's nearest rival comparison shows it nearly matches the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (0.2% delta), suggesting it competes in a different performance tier than the Pro Vega 64, which trades blows with the TITAN X Pascal.