AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards built on different architectural philosophies. The benchmark data, drawn from a single Geekbench OpenCL test, shows the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scoring 87,445 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200’s 69,774, a 25.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card. While both cards occupy the high-end workstation segment, their differences in memory configuration, process node, and raw compute throughput dictate distinct use cases despite the lopsided overall result.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is the clear performance leader in the available OpenCL data, outperforming the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 by 25.3% in the head-to-head benchmark. That single win places the Quadro GP100 in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 sits in the 90th percentile. This 3-percentile gap, combined with the substantial score delta, positions the NVIDIA card as the superior choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads where raw throughput is paramount.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is not without merit. It offers a higher boost clock (1500 MHz vs 1443 MHz) and slightly higher FP32 throughput (10.75 TFLOPS vs 10.34 TFLOPS), indicating it is not wholly uncompetitive in theoretical peak performance. Yet, in the actual benchmark that matters here, the NVIDIA card dominates. For users prioritizing a single, definitive compute metric, the Quadro GP100 is the data-backed winner. The Radeon Pro WX 8200, with its 8 GB memory capacity and lower bandwidth, is better suited for tasks where the NVIDIA card’s larger frame buffer is unnecessary, but the benchmark results offer no evidence of it winning any compute contest.

Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge fundamentally in their underlying silicon. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip built on a 16 nm process at TSMC, packing 15,300 million transistors onto a 610 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 employs the Vega 10 chip fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors across a 495 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. Despite similar densities, the NVIDIA chip is physically larger and contains more transistors overall.

Memory architecture is a critical differentiator. The Quadro GP100 features 16 GB of HBM2 across a 4096-bit bus, delivering 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective). The Radeon Pro WX 8200 offers only half the capacity (8 GB) and half the bus width (2048-bit), resulting in 512.0 GB/s bandwidth at a 1000 MHz memory clock (2 Gbps effective). This 43% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA is substantial and directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

Core counts are identical in shading units and texture mapping units: both have 3584 shading units and 224 TMUs. However, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has only 64 ROPs compared to the Quadro GP100’s 96 ROPs. This difference manifests in pixel throughput: NVIDIA achieves 138.5 GPixel/s versus AMD’s 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates are closer, with the NVIDIA card at 323.2 GTexel/s and AMD slightly ahead at 336.0 GTexel/s. FP16 performance follows a similar pattern to FP32, with NVIDIA at 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1) and AMD at 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power consumption is nearly identical, with the Quadro GP100 rated at 235 W and the Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 230 W. Both are dual-slot cards, require a 550 W power supply, and share identical physical dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height. Display outputs differ: NVIDIA provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins the only available compute test. Its 25.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL indicates that for general-purpose GPU compute, scientific simulation, or any OpenCL-accelerated professional application, the NVIDIA card is the stronger performer. The larger 16 GB memory capacity and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth further reinforce its suitability for large dataset processing, where memory capacity and throughput are often bottlenecks.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 shows no benchmark wins in this dataset. However, its architectural traits suggest theoretical advantages in specific scenarios. The higher boost clock (1500 MHz) and marginally higher FP32 and FP16 throughput (10.75 and 21.50 TFLOPS respectively) mean that in perfectly parallel, compute-bound tasks that scale linearly with clock speed, AMD could close the gap. Its lower transistor count and smaller die size suggest better manufacturing efficiency, but this does not translate to a measured performance win. The 8 GB memory capacity is sufficient for many professional workloads, but it is half that of the NVIDIA card, limiting its appeal for massive simulations or high-resolution texture sets.

In practice, the data points to NVIDIA for any OpenCL workload. The AMD card’s advantages are theoretical and unverified in the provided benchmarks, making it a speculative choice only for users who know their specific application favors higher clocks over memory capacity and measured compute scores.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774, giving NVIDIA a 25.3% advantage.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for these cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 achieves 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 provides 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a boost clock of 1500 MHz, exceeding the NVIDIA Quadro GP100’s 1443 MHz.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 ranks in the 93rd percentile, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 ranks in the 90th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro GP100. NVIDIA scores 87,445 against AMD’s 69,774, a delta of 25.3%. This is not a marginal win; it is a dominant performance gap that places the Quadro GP100 in a different performance tier. To contextualize, the Quadro GP100’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (score 91,671, delta -4.6%) and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (score 91,134, delta -4%). The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (score 69,986, delta -0.2%), which nearly matches it.

The benchmark results show NVIDIA’s card not only beating AMD’s but also sitting closer to higher-tier modern workstation GPUs. The Quadro GP100 is within 4.6% of the RTX A4500, a significantly newer card, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 is statistically tied with the older Quadro P6000. The AMD card’s other rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (score 70,140, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (score 70,829, delta -1.4%), all of which are within a narrow 1.4% band around its score.

This clustering suggests the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s performance is consistent with mid-to-high-end mobile and desktop GPUs of its era, but it does not challenge the top tier. Meanwhile, the Quadro GP100’s score of 87,445 puts it 25.3% ahead of AMD’s offering and within striking distance of much newer professional cards. The data does not show any benchmark where the AMD card wins, reinforcing the NVIDIA card’s superiority in this specific compute test. For any buyer comparing these two solely on measured performance, the Quadro GP100 is the unequivocal choice, delivering a 25.3% performance uplift that is difficult to ignore in professional workloads.