AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X averages 160,671 points across recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870 points. This places the W6800X in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 90th percentile for the WX 8200.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The W6800X scores 196,844 in Geekbench Metal, compared to 70,759 for the WX 8200. That is a 178.2% advantage for the newer card, the largest single-test margin between the two.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The W6800X has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. Both deliver identical 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, but the W6800X has four times the capacity.

Q: Which card supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The W6800X includes 60 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the WX 8200 has none. The W6800X also lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, whereas the WX 8200 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the power connector requirements for each?

A: The W6800X uses the Apple MPX connector and is a quad-slot card. The WX 8200 uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector and occupies a dual-slot footprint. Both recommend a 550 W power supply.

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

A: The W6800X sits within 1.1% to 3.3% of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, AMD Radeon PRO W7800, NVIDIA RTX A5500, and NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation. The WX 8200 is nearly tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, within 0.2% to 1.4% of that card and the RTX A3000 Mobile, CMP 90HX, and RX 6600 LE.

The Verdict

For any workload that stresses raw compute throughput, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is the clear choice. It wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with a 178.2% lead in Metal and a 78.4% lead in OpenCL. The data shows no scenario where the WX 8200 outperforms its successor in these tests.

The WX 8200 remains relevant only for legacy compatibility. It supports the older GCN 5.0 architecture, uses PCIe 3.0 x16 instead of the Apple MPX interface, and offers 8 GB of memory. If a system requires that specific bus interface or the dual-slot physical profile, the WX 8200 is the only option here. However, its average score of 69,870 is below every nearest rival for the W6800X, and its own nearest rival list shows it is essentially tied with cards like the Quadro P6000.

Professionals working with large datasets or high-resolution textures should favor the W6800X for its 32 GB capacity. Those constrained to the WX 8200's HBM2 memory type may still find it adequate for bandwidth-bound tasks, since both cards deliver 512.0 GB/s. But the W6800X offers the same bandwidth with four times the capacity, making it strictly superior in memory flexibility.

The verdict is straightforward: the W6800X wins on every measured axis. The WX 8200 is a fallback for older systems that cannot use the MPX connector, not a competitive alternative.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test shows the most extreme divergence. The W6800X posts 196,844 points against 70,759 for the WX 8200, a 178.2% delta. This reflects the architectural leap from GCN 5.0 to RDNA 2.0, as well as the newer card's higher clock speeds and larger shading unit count.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the gap narrows but remains decisive. The W6800X scores 124,498, while the WX 8200 reaches 69,774. That is a 78.4% advantage. The reduced margin compared to Metal suggests the WX 8200's HBM2 memory and 2048-bit bus help it in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, but not enough to close the overall performance gap.

The WX 8200 has one additional recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 69,076. No Vulkan result exists for the W6800X in the database, so a direct comparison is unavailable. However, the WX 8200's Vulkan score is nearly identical to its OpenCL score, indicating consistent performance across APIs.

Across the two shared tests, the W6800X wins both. Its average score of 160,671 is more than double the WX 8200's 69,870. The percentile ranking confirms this: 97th versus 90th among all GPUs. The W6800X also sits much closer to top-tier rivals, with deltas of only 1.1% to 3.3% against the A100, W7800, RTX A5500, and RTX 4500 Ada. The WX 8200's nearest rivals, by contrast, are within 1.4% of its score, showing it is clustered with mid-range workstation cards.

Specification Differences

Memory size is the largest specification gap. The W6800X offers 32 GB of GDDR6, while the WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2. Both achieve 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, but the bus widths differ dramatically: 256-bit for the W6800X, 2048-bit for the WX 8200. The newer card compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory clocks, rated at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, versus 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective for the older card.

Shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units all favor the W6800X. It has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate reflects this: 200.4 GPixel/s for the W6800X, 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 8200. Texture rate is 500.9 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W6800X runs at 1800 MHz base and 2087 MHz boost. The WX 8200 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. This contributes to the FP32 throughput gap: 16.03 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 32.06 TFLOPS for the W6800X and 21.50 TFLOPS for the WX 8200, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Power draw and physical design also differ. The W6800X has a 200 W TDP and is a quad-slot card using the Apple MPX power connector. The WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP and is a dual-slot card using one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. Both recommend a 550 W PSU. The W6800X measures 267 mm by 120 mm, while the WX 8200 measures 267 mm by 111 mm, so the newer card is slightly taller.

Display outputs diverge as well. The W6800X provides one HDMI 2.1 and four Thunderbolt ports. The WX 8200 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The bus interface is Apple MPX for the W6800X and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the WX 8200.

Architecture Differences

The W6800X uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 26,800 million transistors onto a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm². The WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per mm².

The manufacturing node difference is significant. The 7 nm process allows more than twice the transistor density per area, which explains how the W6800X fits 60 ray tracing cores and double the memory capacity while drawing less power (200 W versus 230 W). The WX 8200's 14 nm node limits its capabilities, though its HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus is an architectural choice that remains competitive in bandwidth.

The W6800X supports newer API features. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The WX 8200 lists DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The ray tracing cores on the W6800X are a hardware feature absent from the WX 8200, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads.

Release dates and lifecycles differ. The W6800X launched on 2021-08-02, while the WX 8200 launched on 2018-08-12. Both are now end-of-life. The WX 8200 lists a predecessor (Radeon Pro GCN) and successor (Radeon Pro Vega), while the W6800X has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The W6800X wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its 178.2% Metal advantage and 78.4% OpenCL advantage make it the definitive choice for any application that uses those APIs. The 32 GB memory capacity gives it a clear edge for large model loading, high-resolution texture streaming, or multi-application workflows. The ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it suitable for modern rendering pipelines.

The WX 8200's only unique strengths are its HBM2 memory type, 2048-bit bus, and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. For systems that require a standard PCIe slot rather than the Apple MPX connector, the WX 8200 is the only option. Its dual-slot design may fit in chassis where the quad-slot W6800X cannot. The WX 8200 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 69,076, which is useful for comparison if a workload specifically targets that API, though no direct W6800X Vulkan score exists.

In terms of power efficiency, the W6800X delivers 16.03 TFLOPS FP32 at 200 W, while the WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS at 230 W. The newer card achieves roughly 50% more compute at 13% lower power draw. This makes the W6800X preferable for dense installations or thermal-limited environments.

For legacy software that relies on GCN architecture quirks or older driver paths, the WX 8200 might be the safer bet. But the database shows no benchmark where that advantage materializes. The W6800X wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher percentile rank, and sits closer to modern rivals. The WX 8200 is a fallback, not a competitor.