AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE represent two very different eras of AMD GPU design, separated by nearly seven years and a complete architectural overhaul. The database records a single head-to-head benchmark result, Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 9070 GRE scores 109,309 against the Pro WX 8200's 69,774. This translates to a 36.2% advantage for the newer card, a substantial gap that reflects the generational leap in compute efficiency and raw throughput. While the older card holds its own in legacy professional workloads, the data clearly indicates that the RX 9070 GRE is the superior compute performer in this direct comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE delivers a score of 109,309, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 manages 69,774. The delta of 36.2% in favor of the RX 9070 GRE is significant, positioning it as the clear winner in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. This is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant one, suggesting that the newer architecture handles parallel workloads with far greater efficiency.

In terms of absolute performance across all recorded tests, the RX 9070 GRE also shows strength in modern graphics APIs. It records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,424, a test that the older Pro WX 8200 does not appear in the database for. Meanwhile, the Pro WX 8200 shows competitive scores in older API tests: Geekbench Metal at 70,759, Geekbench OpenCL at 69,774, and Geekbench Vulkan at 69,076. These figures are tightly clustered, indicating consistent performance across different compute backends for the Vega 10 chip.

The average benchmark score, however, tells a more nuanced story. The Pro WX 8200 has an average score of 69,870 across its three recorded tests, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 9070 GRE, with only two recorded tests, has an average of 57,367, landing in the 87th percentile. This discrepancy is due to the different test suites; the RX 9070 GRE's average is dragged down by the inclusion of the 3DMark Steel Nomad score, which is a different metric scale than Geekbench scores. When comparing like-for-like on Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 9070 GRE is unequivocally faster.

Looking at nearest rivals in the database, the Pro WX 8200 sits within a tight competitive cluster. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, 0.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile, and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE. It is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX. These small deltas suggest that the Pro WX 8200 is a well-balanced performer within its generation, trading blows with contemporary high-end workstation cards. The RX 9070 GRE, conversely, is 0.7% behind the Intel Arc A580, 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, 1.5% behind the Intel Arc A570M, and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT. These are all older or mid-range cards, yet the RX 9070 GRE's average score is lower, which highlights how the benchmark mix affects overall standings.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast. The Pro WX 8200 is built on the Vega 10 chip using the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors onto a 495 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². In contrast, the RX 9070 GRE uses the Navi 48 chip with the RDNA 4.0 architecture, produced by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, achieving a density of 151.0 million per mm². This represents a massive efficiency leap, with more than four times the transistor density in a smaller physical package.

Clock speeds further illustrate the generational gap. The Pro WX 8200 operates at a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz, with memory running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The RX 9070 GRE starts at a base clock of 1420 MHz, boosts to 2790 MHz, and has a game clock of 2220 MHz. Its memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The boost clock advantage of nearly 86% for the RX 9070 GRE is a primary driver of its performance superiority.

Memory configurations also differ fundamentally. The Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 across a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 9070 GRE uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s. While the older card has higher raw bandwidth, the newer card has 50% more capacity, which is crucial for modern workloads that exceed 8 GB. The RX 9070 GRE also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Pro WX 8200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the available host interface bandwidth for data transfer.

The compute resources are structured differently. The Pro WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 9070 GRE has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders and TMUs, the RX 9070 GRE achieves higher fill rates: 267.8 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and 535.7 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is where the RX 9070 GRE dominates, with 34.28 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS for the Pro WX 8200. The FP16 performance is also telling: the Pro WX 8200 offers 21.50 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 9070 GRE provides 34.28 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not sacrifice precision for speed.

Feature support shows the RX 9070 GRE is a modern part. It includes 48 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro WX 8200. API support is also newer, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 on the RX 9070 GRE, versus DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 on the Pro WX 8200. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs differ: the Pro WX 8200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 9070 GRE provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, enabling higher refresh rates and newer display standards.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 8200's strengths lie in its memory bandwidth and legacy software compatibility. With 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, it is well-suited for memory-intensive professional applications that were optimized for the GCN architecture. Its 2048-bit bus provides a wide path for data, and the HBM2 memory was a premium feature at its launch. The card is also dual-slot and requires a 550 W PSU, which is identical to the RX 9070 GRE's recommendation, but the older card uses a 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connector setup, while the newer one uses 2x 8-pin.

For users running older OpenCL or Metal workloads, the Pro WX 8200's consistent scores across those APIs (69,774 and 70,759 respectively) suggest it remains capable in those environments. Its 90th percentile ranking indicates that, relative to all GPUs in the database, it still outperforms the majority of hardware, even in 2025. The card's end-of-life status, however, means no further driver optimizations are expected, which could impact future compatibility.

The RX 9070 GRE wins decisively in raw compute power, modern API support, and ray tracing. The 36.2% lead in OpenCL is the headline figure, but its 34.28 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is more than triple that of the Pro WX 8200. The presence of ray tracing cores opens up hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature the older card cannot offer. The 12 GB memory capacity is also a practical advantage for modern game and content creation workloads, which routinely exceed 8 GB. The RX 9070 GRE is an active product with a 2025 release date, ensuring ongoing driver support and optimizations.

The process node difference is also a win for the RX 9070 GRE in efficiency. Despite higher performance, it has a lower TDP of 220 W versus 230 W for the Pro WX 8200. This is remarkable given the performance delta, and it is a direct result of the 4 nm process versus 14 nm. The RX 9070 GRE also supports PCIe 5.0, which future-proofs it for systems with newer CPUs and storage solutions.

The Verdict

The data in the database is unambiguous. For anyone choosing between these two GPUs today, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE is the superior product in nearly every measurable way. The 36.2% performance advantage in the shared OpenCL benchmark is mirrored by a more than threefold increase in FP32 compute throughput. The architectural improvements, from 14 nm to 4 nm, from GCN 5.0 to RDNA 4.0, and from 8 GB to 12 GB of memory, all point to a modern, capable card that is well-positioned for current and future software.

The Pro WX 8200 retains niche appeal. Its higher memory bandwidth and 2048-bit bus could still benefit specific legacy professional applications that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound. Its 90th percentile standing shows it is not obsolete, and for users with a working system that already supports it, it remains a functional workstation component.

However, from a pure performance-per-watt and feature standpoint, the RX 9070 GRE wins outright. It offers ray tracing, modern API support, a larger memory pool, and higher clock speeds, all while consuming slightly less power. The launch MSRP of 549 USD for the RX 9070 GRE, compared to 999 USD for the Pro WX 8200, further cements its position as the more sensible purchase for new builds, though the database does not track current market pricing.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE is significantly faster, scoring 109,309 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 69,774 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, a 36.2% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 support ray tracing?

A: No, the Pro WX 8200 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 9070 GRE includes 48 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, while the RX 9070 GRE has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 9070 GRE boosts to 2790 MHz, while the Pro WX 8200 boosts to 1500 MHz.

Q: How do their power consumptions compare?

A: The Pro WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W, and the RX 9070 GRE has a TDP of 220 W, despite the latter being much faster.

Q: Which card is newer and what process node does it use?

A: The RX 9070 GRE was released in 2025 and uses a 4 nm process, whereas the Pro WX 8200 was released in 2018 and uses a 14 nm process.