AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in favor of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT across every shared benchmark test. The Pro WX 8200, a workstation-oriented card from 2018, does not secure a single win in the direct comparisons available. The RX 6800 XT dominates all three Geekbench compute workloads, though the margin varies significantly by API.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6800 XT scores 181337 against the Pro WX 8200's 70759. That is a delta of -61% from the perspective of the older card, meaning the RX 6800 XT delivers roughly 156% higher performance in this test. The gap is similarly large in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6800 XT posts 171304 compared to 69774 for the Pro WX 8200, a delta of -59.3%. The closest margin comes in Geekbench Vulkan: the RX 6800 XT scores 136875 versus 69076, still a commanding -49.5% delta.

These are not marginal generational improvements. The RX 6800 XT's Metal score is more than 2.5 times higher, its OpenCL score is nearly 2.5 times higher, and its Vulkan score is just under double. The Pro WX 8200's absolute scores, while respectable for its era, cluster tightly between roughly 69,000 and 71,000 across all three APIs, indicating consistent compute throughput regardless of the interface. The RX 6800 XT, by contrast, shows more API sensitivity, with Vulkan performance trailing its Metal and OpenCL results by a substantial margin.

Looking at the broader database context, the Pro WX 8200 holds a 90th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69870. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69986 (-0.2% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70140 (-0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70829 (-1.4% delta). This places the Pro WX 8200 in a tightly contested band where a few hundred points separate competitors. The RX 6800 XT, meanwhile, sits at the 85th percentile with an average score of 48477, a figure dragged down by its inclusion of PassMark DirectX tests at very low scores (155 to 265 range). Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile at 47743 (1.5% delta), the Intel Arc A550M at 49737 (-2.5% delta), and both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at roughly 49,957 to 50,001 (-3% delta).

The percentile disparity is notable: the Pro WX 8200 ranks higher overall despite losing every head-to-head test. This reflects the different benchmark mixes applied to each card. The Pro WX 8200's average comes solely from Geekbench compute workloads, while the RX 6800 XT's average includes both Geekbench and a full PassMark suite. The PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores for the RX 6800 XT are extremely low (155, 264, 100, 265), which pulls its aggregate down despite strong Geekbench performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from AMD. The Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 6800 XT uses the Navi 21 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process. This process shrink is significant: transistor density more than doubles from 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter to 51.5 million per square millimeter.

The Pro WX 8200 packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The RX 6800 XT contains 26,800 million transistors on a slightly larger 520 mm² die. The newer card therefore crams more than twice the transistor count into nearly the same physical area. This density advantage translates directly into higher shader counts and feature support.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Pro WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The RX 6800 XT raises these to 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The ROP count doubles, which helps explain the massive pixel throughput gap. The Pro WX 8200 achieves 96.00 GPixel/s and 336.0 GTexel/s, while the RX 6800 XT reaches 288.0 GPixel/s and 648.0 GTexel/s. That is exactly three times the pixel fill rate and nearly double the texture fill rate.

Floating-point performance tells a similar story. The Pro WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (at 2:1 ratio). The RX 6800 XT more than doubles this with 20.74 TFLOPS FP32 and 41.47 TFLOPS FP16. Clock speeds drive much of this advantage: the Pro WX 8200 boosts to 1500 MHz from a 1200 MHz base, while the RX 6800 XT boosts to 2250 MHz from an 1825 MHz base, with a 2015 MHz game clock.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and type but match in bandwidth. The Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), also achieving exactly 512.0 GB/s. The RX 6800 XT therefore offers double the capacity at the same bandwidth through a much narrower but faster interface.

Feature support marks the clearest architectural split. The RX 6800 XT includes 72 ray tracing cores; the Pro WX 8200 has none. The RX 6800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro WX 8200 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6800 XT also uses PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Pro WX 8200.

Power and connectivity also diverge. The Pro WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 550 W PSU. The RX 6800 XT draws 300 W with 2x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 700 W PSU. Display outputs differ: the Pro WX 8200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6800 XT provides 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. Physical dimensions are similar in length (267 mm for both), but the RX 6800 XT is taller (120 mm versus 111 mm) and has a defined width of 50 mm.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 8200 wins nowhere in the direct head-to-head benchmark data. Across all three shared tests, the RX 6800 XT holds a commanding lead. However, the Pro WX 8200 does claim advantages in specific non-performance dimensions. It has a lower TDP at 230 W versus 300 W, requiring a less powerful suggested PSU (550 W versus 700 W). It also uses a single 6-pin plus 8-pin power configuration rather than two 8-pin connectors, which may simplify cabling in workstations with limited power headers.

The Pro WX 8200's four mini-DisplayPort outputs could suit multi-monitor professional setups, though the RX 6800 XT counters with HDMI 2.1 and USB Type-C connectivity. The older card's HBM2 memory, while smaller in capacity, offers the same 512.0 GB/s bandwidth as the GDDR6 solution on the newer card, which speaks to the efficiency of HBM2's wide bus design.

The RX 6800 XT wins decisively in raw compute, pixel throughput, texture throughput, and memory capacity. It doubles the Pro WX 8200's FP32 and FP16 performance, triples pixel fill rate, and offers 16 GB of memory versus 8 GB. It also brings ray tracing hardware, newer DirectX and Vulkan support, and PCIe 4.0 connectivity. For any workload that stresses shader compute, ray tracing, or large frame buffers, the RX 6800 XT is the clear choice.

The Pro WX 8200's position in the database is nonetheless respectable. Its 90th percentile ranking and average score of 69870 place it above the RX 6800 XT's 85th percentile, though this is an artifact of benchmark mix rather than indicative of superior performance. The Pro WX 8200's nearest rivals are all professional or mobile workstation parts, suggesting it competes in a different ecosystem than the RX 6800 XT, whose rivals include gaming and data center cards like the RTX 5070 Ti, Arc A550M, and RX Vega 64.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the faster card by every measurable compute metric in the shared benchmark suite. Its 181337 Metal score, 171304 OpenCL score, and 136875 Vulkan score dwarf the Pro WX 8200's corresponding results of 70759, 69774, and 69076. Deltas of -61%, -59.3%, and -49.5% respectively leave no ambiguity about relative performance.

The Pro WX 8200 launched at a 999 USD MSRP in August 2018, while the RX 6800 XT launched at 649 USD in October 2020. The newer card costs less at launch and delivers dramatically higher performance, making the older workstation card difficult to justify on raw numbers alone. However, the Pro WX 8200's lower power draw, smaller PSU requirement, and professional display configuration may still appeal to specific workstation environments where those factors matter more than peak compute.

Users who need maximum shader throughput, ray tracing, double the memory capacity, or modern API support should choose the RX 6800 XT. Users constrained by power budgets or who require multiple mini-DisplayPort outputs on a single card might consider the Pro WX 8200, but they would be accepting a roughly 50% to 60% performance deficit in compute workloads. The RX 6800 XT is the superior choice for virtually any performance-driven application represented in the database.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 6800 XT in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 6800 XT scores 181337 versus 70759 for the Pro WX 8200, a delta of -61% from the Pro WX 8200's perspective.

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both achieve exactly 512.0 GB/s, though the Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus while the RX 6800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: Only the RX 6800 XT, which includes 72 ray tracing cores. The Pro WX 8200 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The RX 6800 XT delivers 20.74 TFLOPS FP32 compared to 10.75 TFLOPS on the Pro WX 2 8200, nearly double the performance.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Pro WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU, while the RX 6800 XT has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU.

Q: When did each card launch and at what MSRP?

A: The Pro WX 8200 launched in August 2018 at a 999 USD launch MSRP, while the RX 6800 XT launched in October 2020 at a 649 USD launch MSRP.