AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards that target the same performance tier, yet they achieve parity through fundamentally different design philosophies. The benchmark data shows the two cards are separated by a razor-thin margin in average score, with the Quadro P6000 posting 69,986 and the WX 8200 posting 69,870, a difference of just 0.2%. Both cards sit at the 90th percentile among all GPUs, placing them in the upper echelon of workstation hardware. However, their individual benchmark results reveal distinct strengths: the WX 8200 leads in OpenCL workloads while the P6000 dominates in Vulkan. The choice between them hinges on which API and memory configuration matters more for the target application.

The Verdict

The data indicates that neither card holds a universal advantage, and the selection should be driven by workload characteristics. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the better choice for compute-heavy OpenCL applications, as it delivers a 4.9% higher score in the geekbench_opencl test (69,774 versus 66,382). This advantage is notable for professionals running scientific simulations, rendering tasks, or machine learning frameworks that rely heavily on OpenCL. Additionally, the WX 8200 features a significantly higher FP16 performance of 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) compared to the P6000’s 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), making it substantially more capable for workloads that utilize half-precision arithmetic.

Conversely, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the superior option for Vulkan-based applications, winning the geekbench_vulkan test by 6.5% (73,590 versus 69,076). This makes it the preferred card for real-time visualization, game engine development, or any Vulkan-centric professional workflow. The P6000 also offers triple the memory capacity at 24 GB of GDDR5X versus 8 GB of HBM2, which is critical for large datasets, massive textures, or multi-application workflows that exceed the WX 8200’s memory ceiling. For users whose applications are memory-bound, the P6000’s capacity advantage is a decisive factor despite its lower raw compute in some areas.

The overall benchmark parity means that neither card is categorically "better." The P6000 is recommended for professionals prioritizing Vulkan performance and memory capacity, while the WX 8200 is recommended for those demanding raw OpenCL throughput and half-precision compute. The 0.2% average score difference is statistically negligible, so the decision should be based on the specific software stack and memory requirements of the user’s workload. The WX 8200’s launch MSRP of 999 USD was substantially lower than the P6000’s 5,999 USD, which may have influenced historical purchasing decisions, but the current data does not reflect price-performance ratios.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in overall average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 holds a marginal lead with an average benchmark score of 69,986, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,870. This represents a 0.2% difference, which is within the margin of error and effectively a tie.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 69,774, defeating the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 66,382 by 4.9%. This is the WX 8200’s strongest showing and indicates a clear advantage for OpenCL-based compute workloads.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 takes the geekbench_vulkan test decisively, scoring 73,590 against the WX 8200’s 69,076, a 6.5% advantage. This makes the P6000 the better option for Vulkan-rendered applications and real-time graphics pipelines.

Q: Which card has more memory and what are the implications?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 features 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has only 8 GB of HBM2. The P6000’s larger capacity allows it to handle significantly larger datasets and textures without spilling to system memory, which is critical for high-resolution rendering and complex simulations.

Q: How do their compute capabilities differ for half-precision workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is vastly superior in FP16 compute, delivering 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), whereas the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is limited to 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). This makes the WX 8200 over 100 times faster in half-precision arithmetic, which is essential for certain AI and scientific workloads.

Q: Are there any differences in API support that could affect compatibility?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but they differ in Vulkan version support. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 supports Vulkan 1.3. This could impact performance or feature availability in the latest Vulkan applications.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split between these cards is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP102 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This generational and fabrication difference explains many of the performance characteristics observed in the benchmarks.

Transistor counts are similar, with the P6000 packing 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, while the WX 8200 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The transistor densities are nearly identical at 25.1M per mm² for the P6000 and 25.3M per mm² for the WX 8200, indicating that both chips are similarly dense despite the different process nodes.

The memory architectures are entirely divergent. The P6000 utilizes a 384-bit GDDR5X interface with 24 GB of memory, delivering 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 employs a much wider 2048-bit HBM2 interface with only 8 GB of memory, achieving a higher bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. This trade-off between capacity and bandwidth is a defining characteristic of the two designs. The P6000’s memory clock is 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the WX 8200’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the WX 8200 compensates with its vastly wider bus.

Compute unit configurations also differ. The P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 raster output units (ROPs). The WX 8200 has slightly fewer resources: 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Despite fewer ROPs, the WX 8200’s pixel rate of 96.00 GPixel/s is notably lower than the P6000’s 157.9 GPixel/s, indicating that the P6000 is significantly faster at fill-rate-limited tasks. The texture rates are closer, with the P6000 at 394.8 GTexel/s versus the WX 8200’s 336.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds favor the P6000, which runs at a 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost, compared to the WX 8200’s 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. This higher clock speed, combined with the architecture’s efficiency, drives the P6000’s FP32 performance to 12.63 TFLOPS versus the WX 8200’s 10.75 TFLOPS. However, the WX 8200’s GCN architecture supports native FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, achieving 21.50 TFLOPS, while the P6000’s FP16 is severely limited at 197.4 GFLOPS due to a 1:64 ratio.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification. The manufacturing process differs: the P6000 uses 16 nm TSMC, while the WX 8200 uses 14 nm GlobalFoundries. Power consumption is close but not identical, with the P6000 rated at 250 W TDP and the WX 8200 at 230 W TDP. The power connector requirements differ, as the P6000 needs a single 8-pin connector while the WX 8200 requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 600 W for the P6000 and 550 W for the WX 8200.

Memory specifications are dramatically different. The P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, while the WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the WX 8200 at 512.0 GB/s versus the P6000’s 432.8 GB/s. The shading unit count varies by 256 units (3840 versus 3584), TMUs by 16 units (240 versus 224), and ROPs by 32 units (96 versus 64). FP32 compute is higher on the P6000 at 12.63 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS, while FP16 compute is vastly higher on the WX 8200 at 21.50 TFLOPS versus 197.4 GFLOPS.

Display outputs also differ: the P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the WX 8200 offers only 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards are dual-slot with identical physical dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The bus interface is the same PCIe 3.0 x16 for both. API support differs only in Vulkan version, with the P6000 supporting 1.4 and the WX 8200 supporting 1.3. Release dates are separated by nearly two years, with the P6000 launching in 2016 and the WX 8200 in 2018.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show a split decision. In the geekbench_opencl test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins with a score of 69,774 against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 66,382, representing a 4.9% delta in favor of the WX 8200. This is the larger of the two performance gaps and suggests that the WX 8200 has a meaningful advantage in OpenCL compute tasks. The WX 8200’s superior FP16 capability and higher memory bandwidth likely contribute to this result, despite its lower FP32 peak.

In the geekbench_vulkan test, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 reverses the outcome. It scores 73,590 versus the WX 8200’s 69,076, a 6.5% lead for the P6000. This is the P6000’s strongest win and indicates that its Pascal architecture is more efficient in Vulkan workloads. The P6000’s higher clock speeds and superior pixel rate may play a role here, as Vulkan often benefits from raw fill-rate and shader throughput.

Each card wins exactly one benchmark, making the head-to-head record 1-1. The average scores reflect this near-perfect balance: the P6000 averages 69,986, and the WX 8200 averages 69,870. The nearest rivals for the P6000 include the WX 8200 itself (0.2% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (-0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (-1.2%), and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (1.4%). For the WX 8200, the nearest rivals are the P6000 (-0.2%), the RTX A3000 Mobile (-0.4%), the CMP 90HX (1.3%), and the RX 6600 LE (-1.4%). The data clearly shows these two cards are positioned within a tightly clustered performance envelope, with no decisive overall winner.