AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA A10G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA A10G and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A10G scores 158,063 points against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200's 69,774 points, a delta of 126.5% in favor of the NVIDIA part. That is more than double the AMD card's output in the same workload, and the margin is not a narrow one; it represents a fundamental difference in compute throughput rather than a minor architectural tuning edge.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller gap. The NVIDIA A10G records 145,863 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 manages 69,076 points, resulting in a 111.2% delta. Again, the NVIDIA part nearly doubles the AMD competitor's score. Across the two head-to-head benchmarks, the NVIDIA A10G takes both wins, giving it a clean 2-0 record. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 does not secure a single victory in any shared test.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the scale of this gap. The NVIDIA A10G sits at the 97th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 151,963. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB, trails by just 1.1% with an average score of 150,305, meaning the A10G is essentially at parity with that high-end compute card. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is 5.4% ahead, and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB is 6.5% ahead, so the A10G is firmly within the top tier of professional accelerators. By contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 sits at the 90th percentile with an average score of 69,870. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, is nearly identical at 69,986, a delta of only 0.2%. The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile is 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE is 1.4% ahead. The WX 8200 is therefore competitive with mid-range professional cards from several years ago, but it is not in the same league as the A10G.

The average benchmark score difference is stark: 151,963 for the A10G versus 69,870 for the WX 8200, a gap of roughly 117%. The percentile ranking difference, 97 versus 90, may sound modest, but the underlying scores show that the A10G operates in a performance tier where the WX 8200 cannot follow.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA A10G uses the GA102 chip built on the Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip based on GCN 5.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node gap alone, 8 nm versus 14 nm, explains part of the efficiency and density difference, though the raw specifications reveal a broader chasm.

The NVIDIA A10G packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The A10G therefore has more than double the transistor count on a die that is only about 27% larger, a direct consequence of the denser manufacturing process and more modern architecture.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The A10G offers 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. The A10G has a clear capacity advantage, three times the memory, and a bandwidth advantage of roughly 17%. The HBM2 implementation on the WX 8200 is efficient for its era, but it cannot compensate for the smaller pool and lower overall throughput.

Compute resources show a similar pattern. The A10G has 9,216 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A10G has roughly 2.6 times the shading units and 1.3 times the TMUs, while the ROP count is 1.5 times higher. The A10G also includes 72 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores, features that are entirely absent from the WX 8200, which lists no RT cores and no tensor cores. This is a generational divide: the Ampere architecture was designed with accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads in mind, while GCN 5.0 predates those dedicated units.

Clock speeds differ as well. The A10G runs at a 1320 MHz base and 1710 MHz boost, while the WX 8200 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. The A10G's memory operates at 1563 MHz, translating to 12.5 Gbps effective, versus 1000 MHz and 2 Gbps effective on the WX 8200. Despite the higher clocks, the A10G draws only 150 W TDP, while the WX 8200 consumes 230 W. The A10G is also single-slot and uses an 8-pin EPS power connector with a suggested 450 W PSU, while the WX 8200 is dual-slot and uses 1x 6-pin plus 8-pin connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU. The A10G is both faster and more power-efficient on paper.

Interface and output differences are notable. The A10G uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has no display outputs, reflecting a server-oriented design. The WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, indicating a workstation visualization role. The A10G supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The A10G was released in April 2021, while the WX 8200 came out in August 2018, a gap of nearly three years.

The Verdict

The data points to two cards with different intended roles, separated by a large compute gap. The NVIDIA A10G wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 126.5% in OpenCL and 111.2% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 151,963 places it at the 97th percentile, within 1.1% of the Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB and within 6.5% of the A100 PCIe 40 GB. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, with an average score of 69,870, sits at the 90th percentile and trades blows with cards like the Quadro P6000 and RTX A3000 Mobile, neither of which are in the A10G's performance class.

For compute-heavy workloads, the A10G is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its 24 GB memory capacity, 600.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 31.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarf the WX 8200's 8 GB, 512.0 GB/s, and 10.75 TFLOPS. The A10G also adds RT and tensor cores for workloads that can use them, while the WX 8200 has no such units. The A10G's 150 W TDP against 230 W for the WX 8200 means it achieves this performance at lower power draw, an important consideration for dense server deployments.

The WX 8200's sole advantages are its display outputs and its form factor for workstation use. It offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the A10G has no outputs. For a user who needs a GPU for visualization or output to monitors, the WX 8200 at least has that capability, though its performance is far below the A10G in every measured test. The WX 8200 also has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, which can be stated once as a point of reference.

Purely from benchmark data, the NVIDIA A10G is the superior compute accelerator. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a legacy workstation card whose only distinct feature is its display connectivity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA A10G scores 158,063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774, a delta of 126.5% in favor of the A10G.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The NVIDIA A10G scores 145,863 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 69,076 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, a delta of 111.2% in favor of the A10G.

Q: What memory capacities and types do the two cards use?

A: The NVIDIA A10G has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 600.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: No. The NVIDIA A10G includes 72 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 lists no RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: What are the power draw figures for each card?

A: The NVIDIA A10G has a TDP of 150 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA A10G has no display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10G wins in every shared benchmark in the database: both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Its 126.5% OpenCL lead and 111.2% Vulkan lead are not marginal victories; they are decisive. The A10G also wins on memory capacity with 24 GB versus 8 GB, on memory bandwidth with 600.2 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, on FP32 compute with 31.52 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS, and on FP16 compute with 31.52 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and the only RT and tensor cores in this comparison. It is also more power-efficient, drawing 150 W versus 230 W, and it supports a newer PCIe interface at 4.0 x16 versus 3.0 x16.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins on features that the A10G simply does not have. It provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it usable in a workstation with attached displays. The A10G has no outputs at all, so it cannot drive a monitor directly. The WX 8200 also has a lower transistor count and smaller die, which may be relevant for certain compatibility or thermal profiles, though its higher TDP of 230 W counters any efficiency argument. Its HBM2 memory uses a wider 2048-bit bus, but the resulting bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s is still below the A10G's 600.2 GB/s. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the A10G supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so the A10G also has the more modern API feature set.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The NVIDIA A10G uses the GA102 chip on Ampere architecture, an 8 nm Samsung process, with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0, a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. Transistor density is 45.1 million per mm² for the A10G versus 25.3 million per mm² for the WX 8200.

Clock speeds: the A10G runs at 1320 MHz base and 1710 MHz boost; the WX 8200 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) for the A10G and 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the WX 8200. Memory capacity is 24 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus for the A10G versus 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus for the WX 8200. Bandwidth is 600.2 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Compute units: the A10G has 9,216 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. The WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and no RT or tensor cores. Pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 492.5 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 31.52 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical: the A10G has a 150 W TDP, is single-slot, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The WX 8200 has a 230 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The A10G uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has no display outputs; the WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the A10G; DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 for the WX 8200. Release dates are April 2021 for the A10G and August 2018 for the WX 8200. Both are end-of-life, and both measure 267 mm in length and roughly 111 to 112 mm in height.