AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M occupy entirely different corners of the GPU landscape. The former is a professional, dual-slot workstation card built on a large 14 nm die, while the latter is a power-efficient mobile part on a 6 nm process. The database’s head-to-head benchmarks show a decisive victory for the WX 8200, but the architectural chasm between these two designs makes the comparison more nuanced than a simple scoreboard. This analysis breaks down the recorded data, focusing on the technical specifications and benchmark deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 records an average benchmark score of 69,870, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M trails significantly with an average score of 46,702, which lands in the 85th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774 against the RX 6550M’s 42,536. This represents a 64% advantage for the WX 8200, the largest delta recorded between the two.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 8200 features a 2048-bit memory bus with HBM2 memory, achieving 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6550M uses a 64-bit bus with GDDR6 memory, delivering 144.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6550M has dedicated ray tracing cores, listed as 16 RT cores in the database. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no RT cores listed, as it is based on the older GCN 5.0 architecture.

Q: What are the respective power requirements?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W and requires a 550 W power supply, using a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector setup. The RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W and is an integrated mobile part with no power connectors.

Q: How do the two compare in transistor density?

A: Despite having fewer total transistors (5,400 million vs 12,500 million), the RX 6550M has a much higher transistor density of 50.5M / mm² on its 107 mm² die. The WX 8200 has a density of 25.3M / mm² across a 495 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide lies in the silicon generation and process technology. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process using the GCN 5.0 architecture, a design optimized for compute-heavy professional workloads. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a massive 495 mm² die. The RX 6550M, conversely, is fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm node using RDNA 2.0, a gaming-oriented architecture refined for efficiency. It squeezes 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm², yielding a significantly denser chip (50.5M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm²).

The resource allocation reflects their different purposes. The WX 8200 fields 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but it adds 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent on the WX 8200. This RT capability pushes the RX 6550M to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, while the WX 8200 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 6550M offers Vulkan 1.4 compared to Vulkan 1.3 on the WX 8200.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a figure suited for large datasets. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 144.0 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor the newer part: the RX 6550M boosts to 2840 MHz with a 2560 MHz game clock, while the WX 8200 boosts to 1500 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the WX 8200’s raw compute throughput is superior, with 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.816 TFLOPS for the RX 6550M.

Finally, the physical and interface specs differ. The WX 8200 is a dual-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a 267 mm length, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The RX 6550M is an integrated mobile part (IGP) with no discrete dimensions, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. The WX 8200 is end-of-life, released in 2018, while the RX 6550M is active, released in 2023.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. In the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins both, taking 2 wins to 0 for the RX 6550M. The OpenCL delta is massive at 64%, and the Vulkan delta is a substantial 35.8%. If raw compute performance is the sole criterion, the WX 8200 is the definitive choice.

However, the context matters. The WX 8200 is a professional workstation card with a 230 W TDP, designed for static, high-throughput environments. Its HBM2 memory and 2048-bit bus make it ideal for large memory objects. The RX 6550M is a mobile part with an 80 W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency and portability are paramount. It trades raw throughput for features like ray tracing and a modern interface.

Users who need maximum FP32 compute and memory bandwidth for professional applications should look to the WX 8200, as its 10.75 TFLOPS and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are unmatched in this pairing. Users who require a compact, efficient mobile GPU with modern API support and ray tracing should select the RX 6550M. The database shows the RX 6550M’s average score of 46,702 is closer to its rivals like the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, a 0.2% delta), indicating it is competitive within its own mobile class. The WX 8200, with an average of 69,870, sits among much higher-performing desktop and workstation parts, such as the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, a -0.2% delta).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 14 nm for the WX 8200 versus 6 nm for the RX 6550M. The chip is Vega 10 versus Navi 24. Transistor count is 12,500 million versus 5,400 million, and die size is 495 mm² versus 107 mm². The memory configuration is 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, leading to bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s.

Compute resources show the WX 8200 with 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, against the RX 6550M’s 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6550M uniquely has 16 RT cores. Clock speeds are 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost for the WX 8200, against 2000 MHz base, 2560 MHz game, and 2840 MHz boost for the RX 6550M. FP32 performance is 10.75 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 21.50 TFLOPS versus 11.63 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply: 230 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU for the WX 8200, versus 80 W TDP with no PSU requirement for the RX 6550M. The WX 8200 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, while the RX 6550M is an IGP with no connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the WX 8200, versus portable-device-dependent for the RX 6550M. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan support is 1.3 versus 1.4, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two Geekbench tests, and the Radeon Pro WX 8200 dominates both. In the OpenCL test, the WX 8200 scores 69,774 while the RX 6550M scores 42,536. The 64% delta is the most significant gap in this comparison. This result aligns with the architectural advantage: the WX 8200’s 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a substantial edge in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, which often scale with raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

In the Vulkan test, the WX 8200 scores 69,076 against the RX 6550M’s 50,867, a 35.8% advantage. While still a clear win, the smaller delta suggests that the RX 6550M’s newer architecture and higher clock speeds (up to 2840 MHz boost) help it close the gap in this API, which can be more sensitive to geometry throughput and driver optimizations. The RX 6550M’s pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s is close to the WX 8200’s 96.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 181.8 GTexel/s is much lower than the WX 8200’s 336.0 GTexel/s, but the higher clocks partially compensate in Vulkan.

Looking at the broader database context, the WX 8200’s average score of 69,870 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140). It is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). The RX 6550M’s average of 46,702 is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Arc A530M (46,614) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601), 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043), and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972). These figures demonstrate that while the WX 8200 competes with high-end desktop and workstation GPUs, the RX 6550M is solidly positioned in the mobile mainstream segment.