AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear generational divide between these two AMD professional graphics cards. Across the two shared tests, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins decisively in both, with no test favoring the older Radeon Pro WX 8200. The most dramatic gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the W7600 scores 92,688 against the WX 8200's 69,076 — a 34.2% advantage. This is not a marginal improvement; it represents a substantial leap in compute throughput under the Vulkan API, which is increasingly important in professional visualization and compute workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W7600 again leads, scoring 81,528 versus 69,774 for the WX 8200, a 16.8% difference. While smaller than the Vulkan gap, this still places the newer card firmly ahead in general-purpose GPU compute. The two cards share the same 8 GB memory capacity, but the architectural differences behind these scores are profound, as the W7600's RDNA 3.0 design delivers nearly double the FP32 throughput (19.99 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS) despite having fewer shading units (2048 versus 3584). The efficiency of the newer architecture is unmistakable.

Looking at absolute performance, the W7600's average benchmark score of 87,108 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 8200's average of 69,870 sits in the 90th percentile. The 16,000-point gap in average scores is substantial, but the percentile difference is narrower due to the dense clustering of GPUs in that performance band. The WX 8200's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, scores 69,986 — a negligible 0.2% difference — suggesting the older AMD card is closely matched with that professional workstation GPU. The W7600, by contrast, sits between the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134, which is 4.4% faster) and the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637, which is 1.7% slower). This positioning shows the W7600 competing in a higher performance tier than the WX 8200.

The Vulkan test deserves particular attention. A 34.2% delta in Vulkan performance suggests that the RDNA 3.0 architecture extracts significantly more from the API than the older GCN 5.0 design. This is not merely a clock speed advantage — the WX 8200's boost clock of 1500 MHz is far lower than the W7600's 2440 MHz boost, but the architectural efficiency compounds this difference. The W7600 also achieves this with a 130 W TDP versus the WX 8200's 230 W, meaning the newer card delivers more performance while consuming substantially less power.

# Where Each One Wins

The data provides a straightforward answer: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins in every measured category. With 2 wins in head-to-head benchmarks and 0 for the WX 8200, there is no workload in this dataset where the older card comes out ahead. However, understanding the nature of these wins is important for selecting the right tool for specific tasks.

For Vulkan-based workloads — which include many modern CAD, DCC, and real-time rendering applications — the W7600's 34.2% lead is decisive. This is the card's strongest showing and suggests that any professional application leveraging Vulkan will see substantial performance benefits. The 92,688 score in this test is the highest of either card's benchmarks, indicating that Vulkan is where the W7600's architecture shines brightest.

For OpenCL workloads — still common in scientific computing, video encoding, and some rendering engines — the W7600 maintains its advantage at 16.8%. This is a more moderate lead but still clearly favors the newer card. The WX 8200's best showing is actually in the Metal API (70,759), a test that was not run on the W7600, so no direct comparison is possible there. This gap in test coverage means Mac-based workflows using Metal remain a distinct consideration for the WX 8200, which supports that API.

The WX 8200's other benchmark scores — 69,774 in OpenCL and 69,076 in Vulkan — are remarkably consistent, with less than 1% variation between them. This consistency suggests the GCN 5.0 architecture delivers stable performance across different APIs, but at a lower absolute level. The W7600 shows more API sensitivity, with its Vulkan score 13.7% higher than its OpenCL score, indicating that developers can extract more performance by targeting Vulkan on this platform.

For users with existing workloads optimized for GCN architecture, the transition to RDNA 3.0 may require validation, but the data shows the performance ceiling is far higher on the newer architecture. The WX 8200's 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is significantly higher than the W7600's 288.0 GB/s, yet this advantage does not translate into benchmark wins. This suggests that raw memory bandwidth matters less than memory efficiency and compute density in these tests.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards spans multiple generations of AMD GPU design. The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish," fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. The WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip on the older GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. This process node difference alone — 6 nm versus 14 nm — explains much of the efficiency gap, with the W7600 achieving 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter versus only 25.3 million for the WX 8200.

Transistor counts are surprisingly similar: 13,300 million for the W7600 versus 12,500 million for the WX 8200. However, the die size tells a different story. The W7600's die measures just 204 mm², while the WX 8200's die is 495 mm² — more than double the area. This means the W7600 packs similar transistor counts into a much smaller space, contributing to its lower power draw of 130 W versus 230 W for the older card. The WX 8200 requires a dual-slot cooler and both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, while the W7600 fits in a single slot with just one 6-pin connector.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The W7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a massive 2048-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 8200's memory bandwidth is 77.8% higher, yet this does not translate into superior benchmark performance. The W7600 compensates with its much higher clock speeds — 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost versus 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost for the WX 8200. Memory clock speeds are also vastly different: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7600 versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the WX 8200.

Compute capabilities show the W7600's advantage clearly. The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the WX 8200 manages 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The W7600 achieves nearly double the compute throughput with fewer shading units (2048 versus 3584) and fewer TMUs (128 versus 224). Both cards have 64 ROPs. The W7600 also includes 32 ray-tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the WX 8200, which has no RT cores. This makes the W7600 compatible with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 8200 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 versus the W7600's Vulkan 1.4 support.

The W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the W7600 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the WX 8200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The W7600 is shorter at 241 mm versus 267 mm for the WX 8200.

# The Verdict

The data provides an unambiguous answer: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way. With a 16.8% lead in OpenCL and a 34.2% lead in Vulkan, the W7600 outperforms the WX 8200 decisively. This is not a close contest — it is a generational leap that renders the older card obsolete for most professional workloads.

The W7600 achieves this performance while consuming 100 W less power, occupying a single slot instead of two, and using a smaller physical footprint. Its launch MSRP of 599 USD is also lower than the WX 8200's 999 USD launch MSRP, though price comparisons should be weighed against the WX 8200's end-of-life status and the W7600's active production. The W7600's 93rd percentile ranking versus the WX 8200's 90th percentile reinforces its higher standing in the overall GPU landscape.

The WX 8200 retains one niche advantage: its Metal benchmark score of 70,759, which was not tested on the W7600. For workflows that rely heavily on the Metal API, the WX 8200 may still be relevant, though this is a narrow use case given the W7600's superiority in both shared tests. The WX 8200's higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s) could theoretically benefit certain memory-bound workloads, but the benchmark data shows this does not translate into practical performance wins.

The verdict is clear: choose the W7600 for virtually all professional applications. Its combination of higher compute throughput, better API support (including ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate), lower power consumption, and smaller physical footprint makes it the rational choice. The WX 8200 should only be considered for legacy GCN-optimized workflows or environments where its specific feature set — particularly Metal support — is essential. The production status difference is also decisive: the W7600 is actively produced, while the WX 8200 is end-of-life, meaning long-term support and availability favor the newer card.

# FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 92,688 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 34.2% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 8200's score of 69,076.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87,108, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The WX 8200 averages 69,870, placing it in the 90th percentile.

Q: Does the WX 8200 win in any benchmark test?

A: No. The WX 8200 does not win in either of the two head-to-head benchmark tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). However, it does have a Geekbench Metal score of 70,759, which was not tested on the W7600.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare between these cards?

A: The WX 8200 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s using 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, compared to the W7600's 288.0 GB/s using 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, while the WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W. The W7600 also uses a single 6-pin power connector, while the WX 8200 requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 supports ray tracing, with 32 RT cores. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no RT cores and does not support DirectX 12 Ultimate.