AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X represent two different eras of AMD professional GPU design, and the recorded benchmark data shows a split verdict rather than a clean sweep. Both cards launched at the same launch MSRP of 999 USD and both are now end-of-life, but the WX 8200 wins two of three head-to-head tests while the W5700X takes the third by a meaningful margin. The database places the WX 8200 at the 90th percentile against all GPUs versus 87 for the W5700X, a gap that reflects the WX 8200's stronger average score of 69870 against 54828. The story underneath those averages is an architecture divide: a wide, memory-bandwidth-heavy Vega design against a newer, higher-clocked RDNA part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Three Geekbench compute tests were recorded for both cards, and the results split cleanly along API lines.

In Geekbench Metal, the W5700X scores 75427 against 70759 for the WX 8200, a 6.2 percent win for the Navi-based card. This is the W5700X's sole victory, but it is a decisive one, and it matters because Metal is the primary graphics and compute API on the macOS platform the W5700X was designed for through its Apple MPX interface.

Geekbench OpenCl tells the opposite story. The WX 8200 posts 69774 while the W5700X manages 43810, a 59.3 percent blowout in favor of the older card. The WX 8200's GCN 5.0 architecture, with 3584 shading units fed by HBM2 memory delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, holds an enormous advantage in this cross-platform compute API.

Geekbench Vulkan repeats the pattern with a slightly smaller gap. The WX 8200 scores 69076 against 45246, winning by 52.7 percent. Two of three tests go to the WX 8200, and both wins are massive, while the W5700X's single win is a single-digit percentage.

Against their respective nearest rivals, both cards sit in tightly packed clusters. The WX 8200 is within striking distance of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69986 average, a 0.2 percent gap), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70140, 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000, where the WX 8200 leads by 1.3 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70829, 1.4 percent). The W5700X is similarly bunched with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54247, 1.1 percent ahead), the RTX 4080 SUPER (54209, 1.1 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, 1.6 percent ahead of the W5700X), and the AMD Radeon 8060S (55757, 1.7 percent ahead).

Where Each One Wins

The W5700X is the clear pick for Metal-based workflows. Its 75427 Metal score makes it the strongest Metal performer of the pair, and its Apple MPX bus interface, Thunderbolt display outputs, and 16 GB of GDDR6 frame buffer all point toward professional Mac environments. For applications rendering through Metal, the W5700X delivers roughly six percent more throughput than the WX 8200.

The WX 8200 dominates cross-platform compute. Any pipeline running through OpenCL or Vulkan, on hardware or software that supports those APIs, favors it by more than half: 59.3 percent in OpenCL and 52.7 percent in Vulkan. Its percentile placement of 90 versus 87 confirms its broader standing, and its average benchmark score of 69870 exceeds the W5700X's 54828 by a wide margin.

Pixel throughput also favors the W5700X on paper: 130.6 GPixel/s against 96.00 GPixel/s, a consequence of its much higher boost clock. Texture fill rate is nearly a wash, 336.0 GTexel/s for the WX 8200 versus 326.4 GTexel/s, because the WX 8200's greater TMU count (224 versus 160) offsets the W5700X's clock advantage.

Architecture Differences

These cards could hardly be more different internally despite similar launch positioning.

The WX 8200 is built on the Vega 10 chip, GCN 5.0 architecture, a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, 12,500 million transistors, and a large 495 mm² die at 25.3M transistors per mm². It carries 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost clock. Its defining feature is memory: 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus running at an effective 2 Gbps, producing 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Compute output is 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. It connects over PCIe 3.0 x16, draws 230 W of board power, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and fits a dual-slot footprint with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. It was released on August 12, 2018.

The W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip on RDNA 1.0, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm node. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, roughly half the area, at a much denser 41.0M transistors per mm². It has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs, but clocks far higher: 1243 MHz base and 2040 MHz boost. Memory is 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus at an effective 14 Gbps, yielding 448.0 GB/s. Raw compute is 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.89 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), slightly below the WX 8200. Its bus is Apple MPX rather than PCIe, its TDP is lower at 205 W, and it occupies a quad-slot footprint with one HDMI 2.0b port plus four Thunderbolt outputs. It shipped December 10, 2019. Vulkan support is newer on the W5700X (1.4 versus 1.3); DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 are identical.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The WX 8200. It wins two of three head-to-head tests, holds a 69870 average score against 54828, and ranks at the 90th percentile versus the W5700X's 87th.

Q: Is the W5700X faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes. It wins Geekbench Metal 75427 to 70759, a 6.2 percent advantage, which is significant for Metal-based workloads.

Q: How large is the WX 8200's compute lead?

A: It wins OpenCL by 59.3 percent (69774 versus 43810) and Vulkan by 52.7 percent (69076 versus 45246).

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The W5700X, with 16 GB of GDDR6. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2, but with higher bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s.

Q: Which is more power efficient by board power?

A: The W5700X, with a 205 W TDP versus 230 W for the WX 8200. Both specify the same 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Can both cards be installed in standard PCIe systems?

A: No. The WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 with one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector; the W5700X uses an Apple MPX interface and lists no external power connectors.

The Verdict

For general-purpose GPU compute outside of Metal, the data points firmly at the WX 8200: it sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, trades blows with the Quadro P6000 and RTX A3000 Mobile within a fraction of a percent, and demolishes the W5700X in OpenCL and Vulkan by margins exceeding 50 percent. Its HBM2 bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s and 21.50 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput back that up.

For Mac-centric, Metal-driven professional use, the W5700X is the only logical choice of the two. It wins Metal by 6.2 percent, offers double the memory capacity at 16 GB, consumes less power at 205 W, and its Apple MPX interface and Thunderbolt outputs make it the platform-native option. Neither card holds up as a forward purchase today given end-of-life status for both, but as a data comparison, the split is unambiguous: WX 8200 for compute breadth, W5700X for Metal and platform fit.

Specification Differences

| Field | WX 8200 | W5700X |

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

| Chip | Vega 10 | Navi 10 |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 10,300 million |

| Die size | 495 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor density | 25.3M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1200 MHz | 1243 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1500 MHz | 2040 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Bus width | 2048 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Memory speed | 2 Gbps effective | 14 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 3584 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 224 | 160 |

| Pixel rate | 96.00 GPixel/s | 130.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 336.0 GTexel/s | 326.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.75 TFLOPS | 10.44 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 20.89 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 205 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Quad-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm | 305 mm |

| Release date | August 12, 2018 | December 10, 2019 |