AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the workstation-class choice for raw compute throughput. It wins two of the three head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with a decisive 41.4% lead over the RX 5600M in Geekbench Vulkan and a 17.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 69870 places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5600M sits at the 85th percentile with a much lower 46601 average.

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M, however, is the pick for Metal-specific workloads or for systems where physical footprint and power draw matter. It wins the Geekbench Metal test by 7.7%, and it is a mobile integrated part (IGP) with a 150 W TDP, no power connectors, and no fixed dimensions, making it suitable for portable devices. The Pro WX 8200, by contrast, is a dual-slot 230 W card requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, a 550 W suggested PSU, and 267 mm of length.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life AMD parts, the decision is straightforward. If the workload is OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Pro WX 8200 is the stronger performer by a wide margin. If the workload is Metal-based or the system is a laptop or compact portable chassis, the RX 5600M is the only realistic option and it holds its own in that specific API.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture, made on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has 10,300 million transistors in a much smaller 251 mm² die, achieving a density of 41.0M per mm², which is roughly 62% higher density despite having fewer total transistors.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro WX 8200's memory bandwidth is 77.8% higher, which directly supports its compute-heavy profile. The RX 5600M's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the Pro WX 8200's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), reflecting the different memory technologies.

Compute resources are heavily lopsided. The Pro WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Pro WX 8200 reaches 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 rate), while the RX 5600M delivers 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.66 TFLOPS FP16. That is an 84.4% advantage in FP32 throughput for the workstation card.

Process and feature support differ as well. The RX 5600M supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro WX 8200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 5600M also lists Vulkan 1.4 support versus 1.3 on the Pro WX 8200, though both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three direct comparison tests show a clear split by API. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M scores 76653 against the Pro WX 8200's 70759, giving the mobile GPU a 7.7% win. This is notable because Metal is Apple's graphics API, and the RX 5600M's RDNA 1.0 architecture appears better optimized for that workload despite having roughly half the shading units and FP32 throughput.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro WX 8200 scores 69774 versus 59589 for the RX 5600M, a 17.1% advantage. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and here the Pro WX 8200's larger shader array and 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth translate directly into higher performance. The gap is substantial but not overwhelming, suggesting the RX 5600M's newer architecture partially compensates for its smaller resource pool.

The biggest divergence appears in Geekbench Vulkan. The Pro WX 8200 scores 69076, while the RX 5600M manages only 48843. That is a 41.4% difference, the largest of the three tests. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales well with raw compute resources, and the Pro WX 8200's 3584 shading units and 10.75 TFLOPS dominate here. The RX 5600M's Vulkan result is also its weakest of the three, falling well below its Metal and OpenCL scores.

Across the three tests, the Pro WX 8200 wins two (OpenCL and Vulkan) and the RX 5600M wins one (Metal). The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 69870 for the Pro WX 8200 versus 46601 for the RX 5600M, a 50.0% gap in favor of the Pro WX 8200. However, note that the RX 5600M's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1320, which drags its average down relative to the Geekbench-only results of the Pro WX 8200.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 | AMD Radeon RX 5600M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 10,300 million |

| Die size | 495 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor density | 25.3M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1200 MHz | 1035 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1500 MHz | 1265 MHz |

| Game clock | None | 1190 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 2048 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3584 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 224 | 144 |

| Pixel rate | 96.00 GPixel/s | 80.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 336.0 GTexel/s | 182.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.75 TFLOPS | 5.829 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 150 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | None |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan API | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | None |

| Release date | 2018-08-12 | 2020-07-06 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | Polaris Mobile |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | None |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | None |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall in the database's average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has an average benchmark score of 69870, which is 50.0% higher than the RX 5600M's 46601. The Pro WX 8200 sits in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5600M sits in the 85th percentile.

Q: In which specific test does the RX 5600M beat the Pro WX 8200?

A: The RX 5600M wins the Geekbench Metal test with a score of 76653 versus 70759 for the Pro WX 8200, a 7.7% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test the mobile GPU wins.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro WX 8200 scores 69076 against 48843 for the RX 5600M, giving the Pro WX 8200 a 41.4% lead. This is the largest delta among the three head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The Pro WX 8200 offers 512.0 GB/s through 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The RX 5600M provides 288.0 GB/s through 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The Pro WX 8200's bandwidth is 77.8% higher.

Q: How do the power requirements differ between the two?

A: The Pro WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP, is a dual-slot card, requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The RX 5600M has a 150 W TDP, is an integrated mobile part (IGP), needs no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each GPU according to the database?

A: The Pro WX 8200's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (average score 69986, 0.2% behind), NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70140, 0.4% behind), NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000, 1.3% ahead), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70829, 1.4% behind). The RX 5600M's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A530M (46614, 0.0% difference), AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46702, 0.2% behind), NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46043, 1.2% ahead), and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972, 1.4% ahead).