AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive generational gap between these two workstation cards. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, with the largest margin appearing in the Vulkan workload.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7900 scores 84,379 points against 69,774 for the WX 8200. That is a 20.9% advantage, a substantial lead that reflects the W7900's modern compute architecture. The WX 8200 is not embarrassed here; its score sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, which averages 69,986, a delta of just -0.2%. The older card remains competitive in OpenCL relative to its own generation, but the W7900 simply operates on a different level.

The Vulkan result is far more lopsided. The W7900 posts 137,070 points, while the WX 8200 manages 69,076. That is a 98.4% delta, meaning the W7900 nearly doubles the WX 8200's Vulkan performance. The WX 8200's Vulkan score is actually its lowest of the three recorded tests, suggesting this API exposes the older GCN architecture's weaknesses. Meanwhile, the W7900's Vulkan score is significantly higher than its OpenCL result, indicating strong driver optimization and hardware acceleration for modern graphics APIs.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the W7900 lands at 110,725, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The WX 8200 averages 69,870, which still ranks in the 90th percentile, evidence of how well it has aged in absolute terms. The overall gap between the two cards is roughly 58.5%, based on their average scores.

The W7900's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II at 109,617 (1% slower), the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944 (2.8% faster), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X at 107,342 (3.2% slower). The WX 8200, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (1.3% slower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829 (1.4% faster). The W7900 competes with modern high-end workstation and mobile GPUs, while the WX 8200 trades blows with mid-range consumer and older pro cards.

The two wins for the W7900 in head-to-head tests are clean and unambiguous. No metric in the database shows the WX 8200 ahead. The Vulkan result, in particular, highlights how far GPU compute and graphics APIs have evolved since the WX 8200's release.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is the superior card by every measured metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 94th percentile ranking versus the WX 8200's 90th, and delivers an average score roughly 58.5% higher. For workloads that rely on Vulkan, the W7900 is in a different class entirely, nearly doubling the WX 8200's output.

Users currently on the WX 8200 who need modern API support, higher memory capacity, or simply more compute throughput should consider the W7900. The WX 8200 remains a functional workstation card for legacy OpenCL workloads, as its 69,774 OpenCL score demonstrates, but it is end-of-life and cannot match the newer card's feature set or raw performance.

The W7900 is the clear pick for professionals running current 3D applications, GPU compute tasks, or rendering workloads that leverage Vulkan. The WX 8200 might still serve basic workstation duties, but the database shows no scenario where it wins outright. Its best result, OpenCL, still trails the W7900 by 20.9%. The verdict is not close: choose the W7900 unless a specific legacy constraint forces the older card.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural eras. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The WX 8200, in contrast, uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The W7900 crams over four times the transistors into a slightly larger die, a direct result of the more advanced process node.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The W7900 ships with 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. The W7900 offers six times the capacity and 68.75% more bandwidth. The HBM2 on the WX 8200 was advanced for its time, but the sheer capacity advantage of the W7900 is decisive for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Compute resources also favor the newer card. The W7900 packs 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units. It also includes 96 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the WX 8200. The older card has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate for the W7900 is 479.0 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 8200. Texture rate is 958.1 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 61.32 TFLOPS for the W7900 versus 10.75 TFLOPS for the WX 8200. FP16 is 61.32 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio on the W7900, while the WX 8200 manages 21.50 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Clock speeds reflect the process node advantage. The W7900 runs at a base clock of 1760 MHz and boosts to 2495 MHz. The WX 8200 has a 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7900 versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the WX 8200.

API support is another differentiator. The W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer card also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 runs on PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the W7900 offers three DisplayPort 2.1 ports plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the WX 8200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Power and physical specifications also shift. The W7900 has a 295 W TDP, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W power supply. It is a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width. The WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP, one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU. It is a dual-slot card at 267 mm long and 111 mm high, with no width listed in the database.

Production status confirms the generational split: the W7900 is active, while the WX 8200 is end-of-life. The W7900's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and the WX 8200's successor is the Radeon Pro Vega. The release dates are 2023-05-25 for the W7900 and 2018-08-12 for the WX 8200. The launch MSRP for the W7900 is 3,999 USD. The launch MSRP for the WX 8200 is 999 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379 versus 69,774 for the WX 8200, a 20.9% advantage.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The W7900 scores 137,070 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the WX 8200 scores 69,076. That is a 98.4% delta, meaning the W7900 nearly doubles the WX 8200's result.

Q: Does the WX 8200 support ray tracing?

A: No. The WX 8200 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The W7900 includes 96 RT cores.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Is the WX 8200 still in production?

A: No. The database lists the WX 8200 as end-of-life. The W7900 is listed as active production.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in every recorded category. Its OpenCL score of 84,379 beats the WX 8200's 69,774 by 20.9%, making it the better choice for general GPU compute workloads that rely on OpenCL. Its Vulkan score of 137,070 versus 69,076 is a 98.4% improvement, so any application built on Vulkan will see dramatic gains. The 48 GB memory capacity dwarfs the WX 8200's 8 GB, which matters for large 3D scenes, machine learning datasets, or multi-GPU rendering workloads where VRAM is the limiting factor. The 864.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 512.0 GB/s further favors the W7900 for memory-intensive tasks. The 96 RT cores give the W7900 hardware ray tracing capability that the WX 8200 lacks entirely, so any modern DCC application with ray-traced viewports will only run well on the newer card. The W7900's 61.32 TFLOPS FP32 performance is over 5.7 times the WX 8200's 10.75 TFLOPS, so raw compute workloads are not close. Its 61.32 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1 ratio also exceeds the WX 8200's 21.50 TFLOPS at 2:1, making the W7900 better for mixed-precision compute.

The WX 8200, by contrast, has no measured wins in the database. Its strongest showing is in OpenCL, where it trails by a relatively modest 20.9%. It remains a functional card for legacy OpenCL pipelines, and its 90th percentile ranking shows it is not obsolete in absolute terms. Its HBM2 memory, while smaller, still provides 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which was class-leading at release. For users locked into older software stacks that do not support newer APIs or hardware features, the WX 8200 can still handle basic workstation tasks. Its dual-slot form factor and 230 W TDP also make it easier to fit into existing systems than the W7900's triple-slot, 295 W design. The 550 W suggested PSU is less demanding than the W7900's 600 W recommendation.

The use-case split is clear: the W7900 is for modern, performance-hungry professional workloads where ray tracing, large VRAM pools, and high compute throughput are essential. The WX 8200 is for legacy environments where software compatibility or power constraints take priority. The database shows no benchmark where the WX 8200 comes out ahead, so any performance-driven decision points to the W7900.