AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and NVIDIA P102-100 are both end-of-life workstation and mining-oriented accelerators, but they occupy very different positions in the benchmark database. The AMD part, built on Vega 10 with GCN 5.0, is a professional Radeon Pro product with display outputs, while the NVIDIA P102-100, based on GP102 with Pascal, is a mining GPU with no outputs. The recorded data shows the AMD card winning both head-to-head benchmark tests, with a particularly large margin in OpenCL. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, architecture differences, and specification gaps to clarify which workload profile each card serves.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data records two benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins both, taking 2 wins out of 2 possible. The NVIDIA P102-100 records zero wins in these comparisons.

The OpenCL test is the decisive separator. AMD scores 69,774 points against NVIDIA's 49,602, a delta of 40.7% in favor of the Radeon Pro. This is a massive gap, indicating that the AMD card delivers substantially higher compute throughput in OpenCL workloads. For users running OpenCL-based applications, such as certain scientific simulations, video processing pipelines, or cross-platform compute tasks, the data clearly favors the AMD part.

The Vulkan test is far closer. AMD scores 69,076, NVIDIA scores 67,454, and the delta is just 2.4%. While AMD still wins, the margin is small enough that real-world differences in Vulkan gaming or compute scenarios would be minor. The NVIDIA card remains competitive in this API, meaning users whose primary workload is Vulkan-based would see nearly identical performance between the two.

Looking at broader percentile rankings, the AMD card sits in the 90th percentile versus all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits in the 88th percentile. The AMD part's average benchmark score is 69,870, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (0.2% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.4% higher). The NVIDIA P102-100 averages 58,528, with nearest rivals like the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (0.2% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (0.2% lower). This places the two cards in different performance tiers: the AMD card competes with high-end professional GPUs, while the NVIDIA card aligns with mid-range consumer and workstation parts.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins in OpenCL-heavy professional workloads and edges out in Vulkan. The NVIDIA P102-100, despite losing both head-to-head tests, shows respectable Vulkan performance and may still serve mining or compute tasks where its specific memory configuration and power profile are relevant, but the benchmark database does not record any test where it wins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectural generations. AMD uses the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. NVIDIA uses the GP102 chip with Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. These process differences affect transistor density slightly, with AMD at 25.3M transistors per square millimeter and NVIDIA at 25.1M, but both are very close in this metric.

Transistor counts are similar: AMD has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, NVIDIA has 11,800 million on a 471 mm² die. The die sizes are within 24 mm² of each other, and the transistor densities are nearly identical, suggesting comparable manufacturing complexity.

The execution resources differ. AMD has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. NVIDIA has 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. AMD leads in shader count and TMU count, while NVIDIA leads in ROP count. This translates to different pixel rates: NVIDIA achieves 134.6 GPixel/s versus AMD's 96.00 GPixel/s, a significant advantage for NVIDIA in fill-rate-limited scenarios. Texture rates are nearly identical, with AMD at 336.0 GTexel/s and NVIDIA at 336.6 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is essentially tied. AMD records 10.75 TFLOPS, NVIDIA records 10.77 TFLOPS, a difference of just 0.2%. FP16 performance is where the architectures diverge dramatically. AMD supports 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 21.50 TFLOPS. NVIDIA's Pascal architecture uses a 1:64 ratio, yielding only 168.3 GFLOPS. This means the AMD card offers over 100 times the FP16 throughput, making it vastly superior for half-precision workloads such as neural network inference or certain media processing tasks.

Memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. AMD uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, providing 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. AMD has more memory capacity and higher bandwidth, but NVIDIA's memory operates at 11 Gbps effective versus AMD's 2 Gbps effective, reflecting the different memory types. The AMD card's memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 1376 MHz with 11 Gbps effective.

The bus interface differs substantially. AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16, a full-bandwidth connection. NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severely limited interface. This could impact data transfer to and from the host system, though mining workloads often minimize host interaction. Display outputs also differ: AMD provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while NVIDIA has no outputs at all, confirming its mining-focused design.

Power requirements are comparable but not identical. AMD has a 230 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. NVIDIA has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and 2x 8-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards with 267 mm length, but NVIDIA's height is not recorded.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. AMD supports Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version. This could affect compatibility with the latest Vulkan applications, though the benchmark delta in Vulkan was small.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear verdict for most users. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 40.7% advantage in OpenCL and a 2.4% advantage in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 69,870 places it in the 90th percentile, roughly 19% higher than the NVIDIA card's 58,528 average and 88th percentile. For any workload measured by these benchmarks, the AMD card is the faster choice.

The AMD card also offers 8 GB of HBM2 memory versus 5 GB of GDDR5X, higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 440.3 GB/s), and dramatically better FP16 performance (21.50 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS). The full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a functional workstation GPU, whereas the NVIDIA card has no display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface.

The NVIDIA P102-100 does have advantages in certain areas. Its 134.6 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds AMD's 96.00 GPixel/s by about 40%, which could favor rasterization-heavy tasks. Its 80 ROPs versus AMD's 64 also supports this advantage. The newer Vulkan 1.4 support and slightly higher FP32 (10.77 versus 10.75 TFLOPS) are minor positives. However, these advantages do not translate into wins in the recorded benchmarks.

For users choosing between these two cards, the database indicates that the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the superior choice for OpenCL compute, Vulkan workloads, and general professional use. The NVIDIA P102-100 might be considered only in niche scenarios where its pixel fill rate is critical, or where the 250 W TDP and specific memory characteristics are preferred, but the benchmark data does not record any test where it wins.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has an average benchmark score of 69,870, while the NVIDIA P102-100 averages 58,528. The AMD card also ranks in the 90th percentile versus all GPUs, compared to the NVIDIA card's 88th percentile.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774, and the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 49,602. This gives AMD a 40.7% advantage, the largest margin in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data records two tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD card wins both. The NVIDIA card has zero wins out of two possible.

Q: What is the memory difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD card has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. AMD also has a higher memory clock at 2 Gbps effective versus NVIDIA's 11 Gbps effective, though the total bandwidth favors AMD.

Q: How do the FP16 capabilities compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 delivers 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 performance using a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA P102-100 delivers 168.3 GFLOPS using a 1:64 ratio. AMD's FP16 throughput is over 100 times higher, making it far more suitable for half-precision compute tasks.

Q: What are the power and interface requirements?

A: The AMD card has a 230 W TDP, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The NVIDIA card has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses 2x 8-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards with 267 mm length. AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data provides two direct comparisons. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774 and the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 49,602. The AMD card wins by 40.7%, a decisive margin that highlights a major compute advantage. This gap likely stems from AMD's larger shader count (3,584 versus 3,200), higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 440.3 GB/s), and vastly superior FP16 capabilities, all of which contribute to OpenCL compute workloads.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD card scores 69,076 and the NVIDIA card scores 67,454. AMD wins by 2.4%, a narrow margin. This closeness suggests that Vulkan workloads are less dependent on the architectural differences between the two cards. NVIDIA's higher pixel rate (134.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s) and higher ROP count (80 versus 64) may offset some of AMD's compute advantages in Vulkan's rasterization-oriented tasks. The newer Vulkan 1.4 support on NVIDIA could also contribute to its relatively strong showing.

Combining both tests, the AMD card's average benchmark score is 69,870, while the NVIDIA card's is 58,528, a difference of roughly 19%. The AMD card's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (0.2% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.4% higher), showing it sits at the high end of professional GPUs. The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (0.2% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (0.2% lower), placing it in a lower performance tier.

The data shows a consistent pattern: AMD wins by a large margin in OpenCL and by a small margin in Vulkan. No recorded test favors the NVIDIA card. The largest win for AMD is 40.7% in OpenCL, while the largest win for NVIDIA in any comparison is its 40% higher pixel rate, but this does not translate into a benchmark victory.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node differs: AMD uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, NVIDIA uses 16 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts are close, with AMD at 12,500 million and NVIDIA at 11,800 million, as are die sizes at 495 mm² and 471 mm², respectively. Transistor density is nearly identical at 25.3M per mm² for AMD and 25.1M for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ significantly. AMD has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz. NVIDIA has a base clock of 1582 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, running higher in both cases. Memory clocks also differ: AMD runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, NVIDIA runs at 1376 MHz with 11 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. AMD has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. AMD has more capacity and higher bandwidth, while NVIDIA's memory runs at a higher effective clock.

Compute units differ. AMD has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA has 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. This results in AMD leading in shader and TMU counts, while NVIDIA leads in ROP count and pixel rate (134.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s). Texture rates are nearly tied at 336.0 GTexel/s for AMD and 336.6 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

FP32 performance is nearly identical: AMD at 10.75 TFLOPS, NVIDIA at 10.77 TFLOPS. FP16 performance diverges sharply: AMD at 21.50 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, NVIDIA at 168.3 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio.

Power and connectivity differ. AMD has a 230 W TDP, 550 W suggested PSU, and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. NVIDIA has a 250 W TDP, 600 W suggested PSU, and 2x 8-pin connectors. AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16, NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4. AMD provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, NVIDIA has no outputs.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. AMD supports Vulkan 1.3, NVIDIA supports Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the NVIDIA card has no recorded launch MSRP. Both cards are end-of-life, with AMD releasing on 2018-08-12 and NVIDIA on 2018-02-11. Both are dual-slot cards with 267 mm length, but NVIDIA's height is not recorded.