AMD Radeon Pro VII vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon Pro VII across all three recorded workloads. In Geekbench Metal, the Pro VII scores 108,383 against 70,759 for the Radeon Pro WX 8200, a 53.2% lead. This is the largest gap between the two cards in any test, indicating that the Pro VII's architecture translates into a substantial performance edge in Apple's Metal API.

Moving to OpenCL, the Pro VII records 90,148 points, while the WX 8200 trails at 69,774. The 29.2% delta here is smaller than the Metal margin but still decisive. Vulkan tells a similar story: the Pro VII reaches 92,862, beating the WX 8200's 69,076 by 34.4%. Across the three tests, the Pro VII wins every head-to-head matchup, with an average benchmark score of 97,131 compared to 69,870 for the WX 8200.

The overall percentile rankings reinforce this hierarchy. The Pro VII sits in the 93rd percentile against all GPUs, while the WX 8200 rests in the 90th. That three-percentile gap may sound modest, but the average score difference of over 27,000 points is anything but. When placed among its nearest rivals, the Pro VII trails the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 4.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M by a marginal 0.4%, while leading the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 by 5% and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 6%. The WX 8200, by contrast, is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (0.4% behind), while leading the NVIDIA CMP 90HX by 1.3% and trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE by 1.4%.

What emerges from the data is a two-tier picture. The Pro VII competes in a higher performance bracket, hovering near the top of its peer group. The WX 8200 sits in a mid-range professional tier, trading blows with cards that score in the 69,000 to 71,000 range. The absolute deltas in every test confirm that the Pro VII is the stronger card, but the rival comparisons also show that neither GPU is an outlier within its own class.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a common manufacturer and both use HBM2 memory, but the underlying silicon differs considerably. The Pro VII is built on the Vega 20 chip with GCN 5.1 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The WX 8200 uses the older Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, produced on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node. This process gap explains much of the efficiency and density difference: the Pro VII packs 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, yielding a density of 40.0M transistors per mm². The WX 8200 contains 12,500 million transistors across a much larger 495 mm² die, for a density of just 25.3M per mm².

Clocks also favor the newer card. The Pro VII runs at a 1400 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, while the WX 8200 operates at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Both cards list the same memory clock of 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective data rate, but the memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Pro VII has 16 GB of HBM2 across a 4096-bit bus, producing 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 offers 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, capping out at 512.0 GB/s. That is exactly half the bus width and half the bandwidth, a fundamental difference that affects memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources follow a similar pattern. The Pro VII carries 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs. Pixel throughput is consequently higher on the Pro VII at 108.8 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate reaches 408.0 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance scales accordingly: the Pro VII delivers 13.06 TFLOPS FP32 and 26.11 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the WX 8200 manages 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Both cards are dual-slot designs with identical power connector requirements (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), but the Pro VII draws 250 W versus 230 W for the WX 8200, and the suggested power supply is 600 W versus 550 W. The Pro VII also steps up to PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 remains on PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors on the Pro VII, four on the WX 8200. Physical dimensions follow the performance split, with the Pro VII measuring 305 mm (12 inches) in length versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the WX 8200, both at 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The Pro VII is the newer product, released in May 2020, compared to August 2018 for the WX 8200.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for users who need maximum compute performance. The AMD Radeon Pro VII wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, with leads ranging from 29.2% in OpenCL to 53.2% in Metal. Its average score of 97,131 places it in the 93rd percentile, and it sits within 4.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, a well-regarded professional card. For workloads that stress FP32, FP16, memory bandwidth, or pixel throughput, the Pro VII is the stronger option on every recorded metric.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200, however, is not without its own position in the market. Its 69,870 average score and 90th percentile ranking place it in a lower performance tier, but it is closely matched with cards like the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and RTX A3000 Mobile. The WX 8200 is shorter in length, consumes less power, and requires a smaller suggested PSU. It also launched at a lower price point, though the database does not track current street pricing.

Users should select based on the workload profile. If the priority is raw throughput in Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the Pro VII is the clear winner from the benchmark evidence. If the priority is a more compact board, lower power draw, and a smaller PSU requirement, the WX 8200 offers a viable alternative, provided the performance ceiling is acceptable. The recorded data contains no scenario where the WX 8200 outperforms the Pro VII.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro VII scores 108,383 versus 70,759 for the WX 8200, a 53.2% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Pro VII records 90,148 points, while the WX 8200 scores 69,774, making the Pro VII 29.2% faster.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro VII has 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus. The WX 8200 has 512.0 GB/s from 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support.

Q: Which card requires a larger power supply?

A: The Pro VII has a suggested PSU of 600 W and a TDP of 250 W. The WX 8200 suggests 550 W with a 230 W TDP.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life products in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro VII wins in every benchmark category recorded. In Geekbench Metal, its 53.2% lead suggests a major advantage for macOS-oriented workflows or any application heavily using Apple's graphics APIs. The Vulkan result, a 34.4% gap, indicates strong cross-platform compute and rendering performance. The OpenCL margin of 29.2%, while the smallest of the three, still represents a substantial edge for general-purpose GPU compute.

The Pro VII also wins on theoretical specifications that feed into real workloads: higher FP32 (13.06 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS), higher FP16 (26.11 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS), double the memory capacity (16 GB versus 8 GB), double the memory bus width (4096-bit versus 2048-bit), and double the memory bandwidth (1.02 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s). Texture rate and pixel rate are likewise higher, at 408.0 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s and 108.8 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, respectively.

The WX 8200 has no benchmark wins, but it does hold advantages in physical and power characteristics. It is shorter at 267 mm versus 305 mm, consumes 230 W versus 250 W, and suggests a 550 W PSU versus 600 W. These factors may matter in compact workstations or constrained power environments, even if they do not translate into performance wins.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The Pro VII uses the Vega 20 chip on GCN 5.1, while the WX 8200 uses Vega 10 on GCN 5.0. Manufacturing differs: TSMC 7 nm for the Pro VII, GlobalFoundries 14 nm for the WX 8200. Transistor counts are 13,230 million versus 12,500 million, and die sizes are 331 mm² versus 495 mm², leading to transistor densities of 40.0M per mm² and 25.3M per mm², respectively.

Clocks differ with the Pro VII at 1400 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, against 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost for the WX 8200. Memory capacity is 16 GB versus 8 GB, bus width is 4096-bit versus 2048-bit, and bandwidth is 1.02 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units number 3840 versus 3584, TMUs 240 versus 224, and ROPs are equal at 64. Pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 408.0 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s, and FP32/FP16 are 13.06/26.11 TFLOPS versus 10.75/21.50 TFLOPS.

Power figures show 250 W versus 230 W TDP, with the same dual-slot width and power connectors. Suggested PSU is 600 W versus 550 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus four. Length is 305 mm versus 267 mm, with matching 111 mm height. Release dates are May 2020 for the Pro VII and August 2018 for the WX 8200. The Pro VII lists a launch MSRP of 1,899 USD, while the WX 8200 lists 999 USD.