AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 in every recorded head-to-head test. The Quadro RTX 6000 wins both shared workload benchmarks, with a decisive 87.6% advantage in Vulkan performance and a more modest 6.3% lead in OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 101,872 places it 45.8% above the Radeon Pro WX 8200's 69,870 average, a gap that reflects fundamental architectural differences rather than minor tuning variations.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is not without merit, however. Its percentile ranking of 90th among all GPUs places it in the top decile of recorded hardware, and its average score sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, a direct contemporary rival. For workloads that are optimized for OpenCL rather than Vulkan, the AMD card remains competitive, trailing by only 6.3% in that specific test.

The verdict for buyers depends on workload priority. If the target applications leverage Vulkan heavily, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the clear choice, offering nearly double the performance. If the workload is OpenCL-centric and the price difference matters, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 delivers respectable results at a substantially lower launch MSRP. The data does not support choosing the AMD card for raw compute throughput, but it does remain a viable option for specific legacy or OpenCL-bound pipelines.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU102 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the older GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its 12,500 million transistors occupy a 495 mm² die, yielding a slightly higher density of 25.3 million per square millimeter despite the older node.

The NVIDIA card introduces dedicated hardware that the AMD card lacks entirely. It features 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores, neither of which appear on the Radeon Pro WX 8200. This explains the massive Vulkan delta, as that API can leverage these specialized units. The AMD card relies purely on its 3,584 shading units, while the NVIDIA card fields 4,608 shading units alongside its specialized accelerators.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a much wider 2048-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card's higher bandwidth and triple the capacity give it a clear advantage in memory-bound workloads, while the AMD card's HBM2 implementation offers lower power consumption per byte transferred.

API support also diverges. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The newer API versions on the NVIDIA card enable features that the AMD card cannot expose, particularly in ray tracing and modern rendering paths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data consists of two benchmarks, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 74,179 against the Radeon Pro WX 8200's 69,774, a 6.3% advantage. This is a moderate win, indicating that in raw compute tasks that do not use specialized hardware, the NVIDIA card's higher shading unit count and faster clocks provide a measurable but not overwhelming edge.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is far more dramatic. The Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 manages only 69,076. This 87.6% delta is the single largest gap in the comparison. Vulkan workloads can utilize the NVIDIA card's ray tracing and tensor cores, which the AMD card simply does not have. The result suggests that any application with Vulkan rendering paths will see near-double performance on the NVIDIA card.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870. The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo at 106,750 (4.6% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X at 107,342 (5.1% higher), placing it in strong company. The AMD card's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (0.2% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.4% higher), showing that the Radeon Pro WX 8200 competes with a much lower performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 18,600 million versus 12,500 million, and die sizes are 754 mm² versus 495 mm². The NVIDIA card's transistor density is 24.7M per mm², slightly lower than the AMD card's 25.3M per mm².

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, compared to the AMD card's 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ substantially: the NVIDIA card runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while the AMD card runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are major differentiators. The NVIDIA card has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's wider effective bandwidth and triple capacity make it better suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Compute resources differ across the board. The NVIDIA card has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores. The AMD card has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores. Pixel rates are 169.9 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 509.8 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 32.62 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The NVIDIA card has a 260 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU, while the AMD card has a 230 W TDP and suggests a 550 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with identical dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, and both use 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. Display outputs differ: the NVIDIA card has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C, while the AMD card has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory. The NVIDIA card also has higher bandwidth at 672.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 support ray tracing?

A: No. The AMD card has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 includes 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores, which explains its large Vulkan benchmark advantage.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 74,179 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774. The NVIDIA card leads by 6.3% in this test.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564 versus the AMD card's 69,076, an 87.6% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: Yes. Both cards measure 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, and both are dual-slot designs. They also use the same power connector configuration of 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 ranks in the 94th percentile, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 ranks in the 90th percentile. The NVIDIA card's average benchmark score is 101,872 versus 69,870 for the AMD card.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 6.3%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 87.6%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that uses Vulkan, where its ray tracing cores and tensor cores provide a massive advantage. The card's higher FP32 throughput of 16.31 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS also gives it an edge in general compute tasks. Its 24 GB memory capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale data processing, high-resolution rendering, and AI inference workloads that benefit from the tensor cores.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins in no recorded benchmark category, but it does offer competitive OpenCL performance, trailing by only 6.3%. Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth from HBM2 memory is respectable, and its lower 230 W TDP means it draws less power than the NVIDIA card's 260 W. For workloads that are strictly OpenCL-based and do not use Vulkan, the AMD card can deliver usable performance at a significantly lower launch MSRP of 999 USD compared to the NVIDIA card's 6,299 USD. The AMD card also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which may be sufficient for older applications that do not require DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The use-case split is clear. For Vulkan-centric rendering, real-time ray tracing, AI workloads, or any task that can exploit tensor cores, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 is the only rational choice based on the data. For legacy OpenCL pipelines, modest compute tasks, or environments where the lower power draw and smaller memory footprint are acceptable, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 remains a functional option. The database does not record any scenario where the AMD card outperforms the NVIDIA card, so the decision rests on workload compatibility and budget constraints rather than raw performance.