AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data from the database shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200. Across all three recorded Geekbench tests, the W6800 wins outright, with no test favoring the older WX 8200.

In Geekbench Metal, the W6800 posts a score of 174,420 against the WX 8200's 70,759. That is a delta of 146.5%, meaning the newer card more than doubles the Metal score of its predecessor. This is the largest margin of the three tests, and it highlights the generational leap in compute and graphics throughput when running Apple's Metal API.

Geekbench OpenCL tells a similar story, though with a narrower gap. The W6800 scores 121,808, while the WX 8200 manages 69,774. The delta here is 74.6%, still a commanding lead but less dramatic than the Metal result. OpenCL workloads appear to scale better on the older GCN architecture, yet the W6800's raw throughput advantage remains overwhelming.

The smallest differential appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W6800 scores 109,961 and the WX 8200 scores 69,076. The delta stands at 59.2%. Even in its weakest relative showing, the W6800 still outperforms the WX 8200 by nearly three-fifths. The data suggests that Vulkan optimization on RDNA 2.0 narrows the gap compared to Metal, but it does not come close to erasing it.

These results are consistent with the overall average benchmark scores. The W6800 averages 135,396 points across all recorded tests, while the WX 8200 averages 69,870. That places the W6800 in the 96th percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the WX 8200's 90th percentile. The percentile gap may seem modest, but the raw score difference of roughly 65,526 points is substantial.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the W6800 sits in a tight cluster. The NVIDIA A10M averages 135,230, just 0.1% behind, and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation averages 135,218, also 0.1% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo averages 135,774, which is 0.3% ahead of the W6800, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 averages 136,472, 0.8% ahead. The W6800 is therefore bracketed by very close competitors, with no single rival more than 1% away in either direction.

The WX 8200, by contrast, sits in a looser field. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 averages 69,986, which is 0.2% ahead, and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile averages 70,140, 0.4% ahead. The NVIDIA CMP 90HX trails at 69,000, 1.3% behind, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE leads at 70,829, 1.4% ahead. The WX 8200's nearest rivals span a wider range, reflecting its position as an older, less competitive part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is fundamental. The W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip based on GCN 5.0 architecture, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This node difference alone explains much of the performance gap, as the newer process allows for higher clock speeds and greater transistor density.

The transistor counts tell the story clearly. The W6800 packs 26,800 million transistors on a die size of 520 mm², yielding a density of 51.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The WX 8200 contains only 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving it a density of 25.3 million per mm². Despite only a 5% difference in physical die size, the W6800 holds more than double the transistor count, a direct consequence of the 7 nm node.

Clock speeds reinforce the architectural advantage. The W6800 runs at a base clock of 1575 MHz and boosts to 2322 MHz. The WX 8200 operates at a base of 1200 MHz and boosts to 1500 MHz. The boost clock difference of 822 MHz, or roughly 55%, is substantial and contributes directly to the W6800's higher fill rates and compute throughput.

Memory subsystems differ as well, though bandwidth is identical. Both cards deliver 512.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. However, the W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The memory clock speeds reflect this: the W6800 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the WX 8200 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The W6800 compensates for its narrower bus with much faster GDDR6 signaling.

Feature support differs significantly. The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and includes 60 ray tracing cores. The WX 8200 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.3, and has no ray tracing hardware at all. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. For modern workloads that leverage ray tracing or the latest Vulkan extensions, the W6800 is the only viable option of the two.

The W6800 also brings a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, doubling the bandwidth of the WX 8200's PCIe 3.0 x16 connection. Display outputs differ as well: the W6800 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the WX 8200 provides four. Physical dimensions are similar in length at 267 mm, but the W6800 is taller at 120 mm versus 111 mm, and its width is listed at 50 mm while the WX 8200's width is not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 averages 135,396 points across all recorded Geekbench tests. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870 points. The W6800 leads by roughly 65,526 points, a 94% advantage.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest delta occurs in Geekbench Metal, where the W6800 scores 174,420 versus 70,759 for the WX 8200. That is a 146.5% difference, meaning the W6800 more than doubles the WX 8200's Metal score.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The W6800 includes 60 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The WX 8200 has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two?

A: The W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus. Despite the different types and bus widths, both cards deliver exactly 512.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The W6800 boosts to 2322 MHz, while the WX 8200 boosts to 1500 MHz. The difference is 822 MHz, or about 55%.

Q: What are the production statuses of these cards?

A: Both cards are listed as end-of-life in the database. The W6800 was released on 2021-06-07, and the WX 8200 was released on 2018-08-12.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 7 nm for the W6800 versus 14 nm for the WX 8200. Transistor counts are 26,800 million versus 12,500 million. Die sizes are 520 mm² versus 495 mm², and transistor densities are 51.5M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The W6800 has a base clock of 1575 MHz and a boost of 2322 MHz. The WX 8200 has a base of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the W6800, versus 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective for the WX 8200.

Memory capacity and type differ: 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus for the W6800, versus 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus for the WX 8200. Bandwidth is identical at 512.0 GB/s. The W6800 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W6800 adds 60 ray tracing cores; the WX 8200 has none.

Pixel and texture rates favor the W6800 heavily. The W6800 outputs 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s. The WX 8200 manages 96.00 GPixel/s and 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 17.83 TFLOPS for the W6800 versus 10.75 TFLOPS for the WX 8200. FP16 compute is 35.67 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Power specifications are close but not identical. The W6800 has a TDP of 250 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both use dual-slot coolers and require 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors.

Interface and output differences remain. The W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The W6800 is 267 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 50 mm wide. The WX 8200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with width not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its 146.5% lead in Geekbench Metal makes it the clear choice for applications that leverage Apple's Metal API, such as macOS-based creative suites and rendering tools. The 74.6% advantage in OpenCL and 59.2% lead in Vulkan extend that dominance to cross-platform compute and graphics workloads.

The W6800 is the only card of the two with ray tracing support, making it suitable for modern rendering pipelines that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features. Its 32 GB of GDDR6 memory provides four times the capacity of the WX 8200, which matters for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-scene workflows. The higher boost clock of 2322 MHz and FP32 throughput of 17.83 TFLOPS give it a clear edge in compute-heavy simulation and AI inference tasks, even without dedicated tensor cores.

The WX 8200 does not win any benchmark category, but it retains relevance in specific scenarios. Its 2048-bit HBM2 bus delivers the same 512.0 GB/s bandwidth as the W6800, which means memory-bound workloads may see less of a penalty than compute-bound ones. The lower TDP of 230 W and suggested PSU of 550 W make it easier to slot into existing workstation power budgets. Its 267 mm length matches the W6800, so chassis compatibility is similar.

For legacy applications that target GCN 5.0 architecture or older Vulkan versions, the WX 8200 may offer more predictable driver behavior, though the database does not record such compatibility metrics. Its smaller footprint, at 111 mm height versus 120 mm, could be a factor in tight enclosures. The 8 GB HBM2 capacity, while small by modern standards, still sustains a full 512.0 GB/s, which is respectable for its era.

In summary, the W6800 is the superior card across every measured dimension. The WX 8200 remains a functional, lower-power alternative for workloads that do not require the W6800's compute throughput, memory capacity, or modern API support. The data leaves no ambiguity: for any performance-sensitive task, the W6800 is the definitive choice.