AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced picture for these two AMD workstation cards. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins the head-to-head comparison by a 2-to-1 margin, taking victories in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Its average benchmark score of 69870 places it at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 sits at the 89th percentile with an average score of 64212. That gap of roughly 8.8% in average score is substantial across the entire benchmark suite.

The WX 8200 is the more consistent performer in compute-oriented APIs. Its OpenCL score of 69774 beats the WX 9100's 66605 by 4.8%, and its Vulkan advantage is even more pronounced at 26.3% (69076 versus 54711). However, the WX 9100 fights back in Metal, posting 71319 against the WX 8200's 70759, a 0.8% edge. This split suggests that the choice between them depends heavily on the software environment. For users whose applications leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the WX 8200 is the data-backed pick. For Metal-centric workflows, the WX 9100 holds a narrow but real lead.

The WX 9100 does offer double the memory capacity, 16 GB versus 8 GB, which is a meaningful advantage for large datasets even if its raw compute throughput is lower in most tests. The WX 8200 counters with higher memory bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s compared to 483.8 GB/s, along with a 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 rate against the WX 9100's 12.29 TFLOPS. These are countervailing factors. The WX 8200 is faster per clock and per memory transaction, but the WX 9100 brings more raw shading units and texture units to the table.

In terms of competitive positioning, the WX 8200 sits within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70829) and within 0.4% of the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70140). It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69986, delta of -0.2%). The WX 9100, by contrast, clusters with lower-tier cards: it leads the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (63842) by 0.6%, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63830) by 0.6%, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63775) by 0.7%. The data shows the WX 8200 competing in a higher performance tier entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The WX 8200 dominates in Vulkan, where its 69076 score is 26.3% higher than the WX 9100's 54711. This is the single largest margin in the head-to-head tests. Vulkan is a low-overhead, cross-platform API used in professional visualization and some compute workloads, and the data suggests the WX 8200's memory clock advantage (1000 MHz versus 945 MHz) and higher effective memory speed (2 Gbps versus 1890 Mbps) contribute to better throughput in this environment. The WX 8200 also wins OpenCL by 4.8%, a smaller but still decisive margin. OpenCL is widely used in scientific computing, rendering, and machine learning inference, making this a critical victory for the WX 8200 in professional settings.

The WX 9100 wins only in Metal, and by a slim 0.8% margin (71319 versus 70759). Metal is Apple's graphics and compute API, so this advantage matters primarily for macOS-based workflows. The WX 9100's higher shading unit count (4096 versus 3584) and TMU count (256 versus 224) likely explain its Metal edge, as those resources are more fully utilized in that API's execution model. The WX 9100 also offers 16 GB of HBM2 memory versus the WX 8200's 8 GB, which is a decisive factor for workloads that exceed the 8 GB capacity. In such cases, the WX 9100 avoids memory spills entirely, while the WX 8200 would be forced to fall back to slower paths.

For pixel-rate-bound tasks, both cards are identical at 96.00 GPixel/s, since they share the same 64 ROPs and the same 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost clocks. Texture rate differs, however: the WX 9100 delivers 384.0 GTexel/s against the WX 8200's 336.0 GTexel/s, a 14.3% advantage that helps in texture-heavy rendering. The WX 9100 also leads in FP32 compute at 12.29 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS, an 14.3% gap, and in FP16 at 24.58 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS. These raw compute advantages do not translate into benchmark wins outside Metal, which indicates that memory bandwidth and clock behavior matter more in real-world OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same Vega 10 chip, using the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share identical transistor counts of 12,500 million and die sizes of 495 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 25.3M / mm². The base clock is also identical at 1200 MHz, and both boost to 1500 MHz. This means the fundamental silicon is the same; the differences come from configuration and memory.

The WX 9100 is the fully enabled Vega 10 part. It activates 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The WX 8200 disables 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, leaving 3584 shading units and 224 TMUs, while keeping all 64 ROPs. This explains the WX 9100's higher pixel rate parity (both at 96.00 GPixel/s) but also its higher texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 and FP16 compute figures scale accordingly, with the WX 9100 reaching 12.29 TFLOPS and 24.58 TFLOPS respectively, while the WX 8200 manages 10.75 TFLOPS and 21.50 TFLOPS.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 9100 doubles capacity to 16 GB but runs memory at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective), producing 483.8 GB/s. The WX 8200 therefore has 5.8% more bandwidth on a narrower capacity window, which likely drives its benchmark wins in bandwidth-sensitive APIs. Both cards use the same 2048-bit bus width.

The physical cards are nearly identical: dual-slot designs, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, with the same 230 W TDP and the same power connector layout of one 6-pin and one 8-pin. The suggested power supply is 550 W for both. The WX 8200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the WX 9100 provides six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a difference for multi-monitor setups. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores. The WX 8200 launched on August 12, 2018, with a launch MSRP of 999 USD; the WX 9100 launched over a year earlier on July 9, 2017, with a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall in the benchmark data?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a higher average benchmark score of 69870 compared to the WX 9100's 64212, a difference of roughly 8.8%. It also wins two of the three head-to-head tests, taking OpenCL by 4.8% and Vulkan by 26.3%.

Q: Why does the WX 9100 win in Metal despite losing the other tests?

A: The WX 9100 has more shading units (4096 versus 3584) and more texture units (256 versus 224), which appear to benefit Metal workloads. Its Metal score of 71319 edges out the WX 8200's 70759 by 0.8%, a narrow but consistent advantage.

Q: Is the 16 GB memory on the WX 9100 worth the performance trade-off?

A: The WX 9100 offers double the capacity at 16 GB versus 8 GB, which is critical for datasets that exceed 8 GB. However, its memory bandwidth is lower at 483.8 GB/s compared to the WX 8200's 512.0 GB/s, and it loses in OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. The choice depends on whether capacity or speed matters more for the specific workload.

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

A: The WX 8200 is nearly tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (delta of -0.2%) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (delta of -0.4%), while slightly ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (delta of 1.3%). The WX 9100 leads the NVIDIA CMP 30HX by 0.6% and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP by 0.6%, placing it in a lower performance tier.

Q: Do both cards have the same power requirements?

A: Yes, both have a 230 W TDP, use one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and recommend a 550 W power supply. They also share the same dual-slot form factor and identical physical dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The WX 9100 provides six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the WX 8200 provides four. This gives the WX 9100 an advantage for multi-monitor professional setups.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark margin in this comparison belongs to the WX 8200 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its score of 69076 crushes the WX 9100's 54711, a massive 26.3% delta. This is not a subtle difference; it is a categorical gap. Vulkan performance is increasingly important in professional visualization tools and compute frameworks that leverage the API's low overhead and direct GPU control. The WX 8200's higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 483.8 GB/s) and faster effective memory speed (2 Gbps versus 1890 Mbps) are the most plausible drivers, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory throughput. The WX 9100's higher shading unit count (4096 versus 3584) does not rescue it here, indicating that the bottleneck lies in memory delivery rather than compute capacity.

The OpenCL test shows a closer but still decisive win for the WX 8200. It scores 69774 against the WX 9100's 66605, a 4.8% delta. OpenCL is the most common API for general-purpose GPU computing on Windows and Linux, so this result has broad practical implications. The WX 8200's advantage here is consistent with its memory bandwidth lead, but the smaller margin suggests that compute resources also play a role. The WX 9100's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 rate is 14.3% higher than the WX 8200's 10.75 TFLOPS, yet it still loses OpenCL. This indicates that raw FP32 throughput is not the limiting factor in this benchmark; memory efficiency and clock behavior are more significant.

The Metal test is the WX 9100's only victory, and it is a narrow one. The WX 9100 scores 71319 against the WX 8200's 70759, a 0.8% delta. This is the smallest margin of the three tests, but it is still a win. Metal is Apple's API, so this result primarily matters for macOS users. The WX 9100's full complement of 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs likely provides the extra execution resources that Metal can exploit, even at lower memory bandwidth. The 0.8% margin is within the range of run-to-run variance, but the fact that it appears consistently across the WX 9100's higher shading unit count suggests it is a real effect.

In aggregate, the WX 8200's average benchmark score of 69870 versus the WX 9100's 64212 translates to an 8.8% overall advantage. The WX 8200 also achieves a higher percentile ranking at 90 versus 89. When placed against external rivals, the WX 8200 sits in more competitive company: its delta of -0.2% against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 shows parity with a top-tier workstation GPU, while the WX 9100's best rival comparison is a 0.6% lead over the NVIDIA CMP 30HX. The data consistently places the WX 8200 in a higher performance class, despite the WX 9100's larger memory pool and higher compute specifications. The WX 8200 wins because its memory subsystem is faster and its clock behavior is more efficient in practice, even with fewer active compute units.