AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs Intel Arc Pro A60 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 leads with an average benchmark score of 69,870, while the Intel Arc Pro A60 trails at 60,326. This places the AMD card in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Intel card’s 88th percentile.

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

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774 versus the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 63,485, a 9.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 20.8%, with scores of 69,076 and 57,166 respectively.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A60 have any ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro A60 features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro A60 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient per the data?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60 has a 130 W TDP and a suggested 300 W PSU, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP and a suggested 550 W PSU. The Intel card also uses a single-slot design, whereas the AMD card is dual-slot.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is end-of-life, having launched in August 2018. The Intel Arc Pro A60 is active, with a release date of June 2023.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on GCN 5.0, using the Vega 10 chip, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) generation. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a transistor count of 12,500 million spread across a 495 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-256 chip, part of the Alchemist Pro Series generation. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process, with 11,500 million transistors on a much smaller 269 mm² die, resulting in a higher density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 6 nm, which explains the Intel card’s smaller die despite similar transistor counts.

The compute resources differ substantially. The AMD card has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Intel card has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. However, the Intel card adds 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification sheet. Neither card lists tensor cores.

Clock speeds favor Intel in boost, but AMD in base. The Intel Arc Pro A60 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 2050 MHz. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a base of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: AMD runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) with HBM2, while Intel runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) with GDDR6.

API support shows generational differences. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel card also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is rated at 10.75 TFLOPS, compared to the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 8.397 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 21.50 TFLOPS for AMD versus 16.79 TFLOPS for Intel, both at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD card also has a higher texture rate at 336.0 GTexel/s versus Intel’s 262.4 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is another clear win: 512.0 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 wins in areas tied to newer technology. Its pixel rate is higher at 131.2 GPixel/s versus AMD’s 96.00 GPixel/s, despite AMD’s overall compute lead. The Intel card has more memory capacity at 12 GB versus 8 GB. It also has ray tracing cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. The Intel card’s display outputs are DisplayPort 2.0, compared to AMD’s mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Its PCIe 4.0 interface doubles the bandwidth of AMD’s PCIe 3.0.

The Intel card is also far more power-efficient in terms of system requirements. It has a 130 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the AMD card needs 230 W and a 550 W PSU. The Intel card is single-slot, while the AMD card is dual-slot. The Intel card also requires no auxiliary power connectors, whereas the AMD card needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 14 nm (AMD) vs 6 nm (Intel)
• Die Size: 495 mm² (AMD) vs 269 mm² (Intel)
• Transistor Density: 25.3M / mm² (AMD) vs 42.8M / mm² (Intel)
• Base Clock: 1200 MHz (AMD) vs 900 MHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 1500 MHz (AMD) vs 2050 MHz (Intel)
• Memory Size: 8 GB (AMD) vs 12 GB (Intel)
• Memory Type: HBM2 (AMD) vs GDDR6 (Intel)
• Memory Bus: 2048 bit (AMD) vs 192 bit (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s (AMD) vs 384.0 GB/s (Intel)
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz / 2 Gbps effective (AMD) vs 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective (Intel)
• Shading Units: 3584 (AMD) vs 2048 (Intel)
• TMUs: 224 (AMD) vs 128 (Intel)
• ROPs: 64 (AMD) vs 64 (Intel)
• RT Cores: None (AMD) vs 16 (Intel)
• Pixel Rate: 96.00 GPixel/s (AMD) vs 131.2 GPixel/s (Intel)
• Texture Rate: 336.0 GTexel/s (AMD) vs 262.4 GTexel/s (Intel)
• FP32: 10.75 TFLOPS (AMD) vs 8.397 TFLOPS (Intel)
• FP16: 21.50 TFLOPS (AMD) vs 16.79 TFLOPS (Intel)
• TDP: 230 W (AMD) vs 130 W (Intel)
• Slot Width: Dual-slot (AMD) vs Single-slot (Intel)
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin (AMD) vs None (Intel)
• Suggested PSU: 550 W (AMD) vs 300 W (Intel)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (AMD) vs PCIe 4.0 x16 (Intel)
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a (AMD) vs 4x DisplayPort 2.0 (Intel)
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) (AMD) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2) (Intel)
• Vulkan: 1.3 (AMD) vs 1.4 (Intel)
• Production Status: End-of-life (AMD) vs Active (Intel)
• Release Date: 2018-08-12 (AMD) vs 2023-06-05 (Intel)
• Dimensions: 267 mm / 10.5 inches length, 111 mm / 4.4 inches height (AMD) vs not specified (Intel)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were tested in two Geekbench workloads, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 won both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scored 69,774 against the Intel Arc Pro A60’s 63,485. That is a 9.9% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scored 69,076 against the Intel card’s 57,166, a much larger 20.8% delta.

These results align with the average benchmark scores. The AMD card’s average of 69,870 is 15.8% higher than the Intel card’s 60,326. The AMD card’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, -0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140, -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829, -1.4%). The Intel card’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, 0%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 0.3%), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896, -2.5%).

The Vulkan gap is particularly telling. A 20.8% difference indicates that the AMD architecture has a substantial advantage in this API workload, far exceeding the OpenCL gap. The Intel card’s Vulkan score of 57,166 is its weaker result, while its OpenCL score of 63,485 is comparatively stronger. The AMD card’s scores are tightly clustered: 69,774 OpenCL, 69,076 Vulkan, and a Metal score of 70,759 (which the Intel card was not tested on).

The Intel Arc Pro A60’s average score of 60,326 places it in the 88th percentile, just two points below the AMD card’s 90th percentile. This is a narrow overall percentile gap, but the head-to-head deltas show a clear winner. The Intel card’s best result is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, and it matches the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 exactly at 60,347 with a 0% delta.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins every benchmark it shares with the Intel Arc Pro A60, and it wins by a wide margin in Vulkan. Its average score of 69,870 versus 60,326 means the AMD card is roughly 16% faster overall. For workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the AMD card is the stronger choice.

The AMD card also leads in raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 10.75 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel card’s 8.397 TFLOPS by over 28%. Its memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s is 33% higher than Intel’s 384.0 GB/s. These are not marginal differences; they translate directly into the benchmark results.

However, the Intel Arc Pro A60 has its own advantages. It is the only card with ray tracing cores, making it the choice for workloads that use RT acceleration. It has 12 GB of memory versus 8 GB, which matters for large datasets. Its pixel rate of 131.2 GPixel/s is higher than AMD’s 96.00 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate-bound performance. It also uses far less power: 130 W TDP versus 230 W, with a 300 W suggested PSU versus 550 W. The single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it easier to integrate into dense systems.

The production status is another factor. The AMD card is end-of-life, while the Intel card is active. The AMD card launched in August 2018 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The Intel card launched in June 2023 with no MSRP listed.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance and memory bandwidth, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the data-backed choice. For users needing ray tracing, more memory capacity, lower power draw, or a single-slot form factor, the Intel Arc Pro A60 is the appropriate pick. The benchmark data shows the AMD card winning both head-to-head tests, but the Intel card offers features that the benchmarks do not capture.