AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 occupy very different positions in the hardware landscape. The RTX 3090 Ti is a flagship-class Ampere part aimed at high-end compute and rendering, while the WX 8200 is a professional workstation card built on the older Vega architecture. The recorded data shows a stark performance separation between the two, with the NVIDIA card winning both shared benchmark tests by a wide margin. However, the AMD card retains a distinct niche due to its lower power draw, smaller physical footprint, and legacy compatibility. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, how their architectures differ, and what the benchmark numbers actually mean for a potential user.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are one-sided in terms of raw scores. The RTX 3090 Ti wins both tests that the database has recorded for both cards, giving it a clean sweep in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 Ti scores 174,441 against the WX 8200’s 69,774, a difference of 150 percent. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: 215,633 versus 69,076, a 212.2 percent advantage for the NVIDIA card. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally higher level of compute throughput.

The AMD card’s wins are not in raw performance but in operational characteristics. The WX 8200 has a board power of 230 W, compared to 450 W for the RTX 3090 Ti. It also requires a 550 W power supply, whereas the NVIDIA card asks for 850 W. The AMD card is a dual-slot design at 267 mm in length, while the RTX 3090 Ti is a triple-slot card measuring 336 mm. For a workstation with limited space or power delivery, the WX 8200 is the more practical fit, even though it loses every compute benchmark.

The RTX 3090 Ti also holds the advantage in its benchmark percentile ranking. It sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the WX 8200 sits in the 90th percentile. The NVIDIA card’s average benchmark score is 131,938, compared to 69,870 for the AMD card. That places the RTX 3090 Ti roughly 89 percent higher in average score, a figure derived directly from the recorded values.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures and manufacturing processes. The RTX 3090 Ti uses the GA102 chip with NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors onto a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip with AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The comparison is clear: the Ampere chip crams more than twice the transistors into a larger area, which partially explains its performance lead.

The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The RTX 3090 Ti has 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. Though the AMD card uses a much wider bus, its lower memory clock and older HBM2 standard result in half the bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also has a larger memory pool, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Compute resources differ by a similar magnitude. The RTX 3090 Ti has 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 112 render output units. It also includes 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores, features the WX 8200 lacks entirely. The AMD card has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput is 10.75 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card reaches 40.00 TFLOPS. In FP16, the AMD card achieves 21.50 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card matches its FP32 rate at 40.00 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The API support also reflects their respective generations. The RTX 3090 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card is also built on PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Neither card is in current production; both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the RTX 3090 Ti producing 174,441 points against the WX 8200’s 69,774 points. That is a 150 percent advantage for the NVIDIA card, meaning it delivers roughly two and a half times the OpenCL performance. This test is generally sensitive to raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency, all areas where the Ampere architecture holds a clear edge.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is even more lopsided. The RTX 3090 Ti scores 215,633, while the WX 8200 manages 69,076, a 212.2 percent gap. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose architectural efficiencies, and here the NVIDIA card’s newer design and higher transistor count translate into a dominant result. The AMD card’s Vulkan score is slightly lower than its OpenCL score, which suggests its GCN architecture does not scale as well under Vulkan’s explicit control model.

The RTX 3090 Ti also has a third benchmark in the database, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test where it scores 5,741. The WX 8200 has no recorded result for this test, so no direct comparison is possible. The AMD card instead has a Geekbench Metal score of 70,759, a test the NVIDIA card does not appear in. These exclusive benchmarks do not affect the head-to-head tally, but they do show that each card has strengths in specific API environments. Metal performance on the WX 8200 is respectable for its generation, but the lack of a comparable NVIDIA result means it cannot be used for a direct verdict.

When placed against their nearest rivals in the database, both cards hold their ground. The RTX 3090 Ti’s average score of 131,938 sits 0.7 percent above the NVIDIA L4’s 131,072 and 2.4 percent below the RTX 4000 Ada Generation’s 135,218. The WX 8200’s average score of 69,870 is 0.2 percent below the Quadro P6000’s 69,986 and 1.4 percent below the Radeon RX 6600 LE’s 70,829. These small deltas indicate that both cards are competitive within their own performance tiers, even though those tiers are far apart.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is significantly faster, scoring 174,441 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to 69,774 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, a 150 percent difference.

Q: Does the AMD card have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 3090 Ti includes 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti has 24 GB of GDDR6X memory, while the WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory. The NVIDIA card also has higher bandwidth at 1.01 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a 230 W board power and a suggested 550 W power supply. The RTX 3090 Ti has a 450 W board power and a suggested 850 W power supply.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti has an average benchmark score of 131,938, while the WX 8200 has an average score of 69,870. The NVIDIA card also ranks in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 90th percentile for the AMD card.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the RTX 3090 Ti and the WX 8200 are listed as end-of-life in the database. The RTX 3090 Ti was released in January 2022, and the WX 8200 was released in August 2018.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear verdict for anyone choosing between these two cards. The RTX 3090 Ti wins every shared benchmark by a large margin, offers vastly higher compute throughput, and carries modern features like ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. For any workload built around OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA card is the obvious choice. Its 24 GB memory pool and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth further solidify its position for data-heavy tasks. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 average score, are close in performance, but none of them appear in the same league as the WX 8200’s 69,870 average score.

The WX 8200 is not without a purpose, however. Its 230 W power draw, dual-slot profile, 267 mm length, and 550 W suggested power supply make it a more manageable card for constrained systems. Its 90th percentile ranking is still strong, and its nearest rival, the Quadro P6000 at 69,986 average score, shows it remains competitive within its own generation. For legacy professional environments that do not require the latest APIs or ray tracing, the AMD card can still serve as a functional workstation part, just not one that can challenge the RTX 3090 Ti in raw numbers.

The RTX 3090 Ti also has the higher launch MSRP at 1,999 USD, but that figure is stated once here for reference only and not as a point of comparison. Ultimately, the choice depends entirely on the workload and physical constraints of the system. If the application demands maximum OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the RTX 3090 Ti is the only logical pick. If the system has strict power and space limits, the WX 8200 is the safer fit, accepting its lower compute output.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, drawn directly from the recorded data:

• Architecture: NVIDIA uses Ampere; AMD uses GCN 5.0.
• Process node: NVIDIA is on 8 nm at Samsung; AMD is on 14 nm at GlobalFoundries.
• Transistors: NVIDIA has 28,300 million; AMD has 12,500 million.
• Die size: NVIDIA is 628 mm²; AMD is 495 mm².
• Transistor density: NVIDIA is 45.1M / mm²; AMD is 25.3M / mm².
• Base clock: NVIDIA is 1560 MHz; AMD is 1200 MHz.
• Boost clock: NVIDIA is 1860 MHz; AMD is 1500 MHz.
• Memory clock: NVIDIA is 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective; AMD is 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.
• Memory size: NVIDIA has 24 GB; AMD has 8 GB.
• Memory type: NVIDIA uses GDDR6X; AMD uses HBM2.
• Memory bus width: NVIDIA is 384 bit; AMD is 2048 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: NVIDIA is 1.01 TB/s; AMD is 512.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: NVIDIA has 10,752; AMD has 3,584.
• TMUs: NVIDIA has 336; AMD has 224.
• ROPs: NVIDIA has 112; AMD has 64.
• Ray tracing cores: NVIDIA has 84; AMD has none.
• Tensor cores: NVIDIA has 336; AMD has none.
• Pixel rate: NVIDIA is 208.3 GPixel/s; AMD is 96.00 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: NVIDIA is 625.0 GTexel/s; AMD is 336.0 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: NVIDIA is 40.00 TFLOPS; AMD is 10.75 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: NVIDIA is 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1); AMD is 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1).
• Board power: NVIDIA is 450 W; AMD is 230 W.
• Slot width: NVIDIA is triple-slot; AMD is dual-slot.
• Power connectors: NVIDIA uses 1x 16-pin; AMD uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: NVIDIA is 850 W; AMD is 550 W.
• Bus interface: NVIDIA is PCIe 4.0 x16; AMD is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: NVIDIA has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a; AMD has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• DirectX support: NVIDIA is 12 Ultimate (12_2); AMD is 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan support: NVIDIA is 1.4; AMD is 1.3.
• Dimensions: NVIDIA is 336 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm; AMD is 267 mm x 111 mm with no recorded width.
• Release date: NVIDIA is January 2022; AMD is August 2018.
• Predecessor: NVIDIA lists GeForce 20; AMD lists Radeon Pro GCN.
• Successor: NVIDIA lists GeForce 40; AMD lists Radeon Pro Vega.
• Launch MSRP: NVIDIA is 1,999 USD; AMD is 999 USD.