AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data pits the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 across two compute API tests, and the results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 146,593 against AMD's 69,774. That is a delta of 110.1%, meaning the Ada card more than doubles the older AMD board's output in this workload. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin shrinks but remains decisive: NVIDIA scores 123,842 versus AMD's 69,076, a 79.3% advantage. The NVIDIA part wins both recorded matchups, giving it a clean 2-0 record in the head-to-head table.

Looking at the broader database, these deltas are consistent with where each card sits relative to its own peer group. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's average benchmark score is 135,218. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (-0.4%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (-0.9%). So the Ada card is essentially tied with that cluster, trailing the V620 by less than a percentage point. It sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200, by contrast, averages 69,870. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (-0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (-0.4%), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (1.3%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829 (-1.4%). It lands in the 90th percentile, a respectable position but far below the Ada card's standing. When the two are compared directly, the average score gap is nearly 2:1, which matches the OpenCL result almost exactly.

What is curious is that the Vulkan gap, while still huge, is smaller than OpenCL. That suggests the Ada architecture's advantage is not purely raw compute; API-specific optimizations or driver scheduling could be narrowing the difference in Vulkan. Even so, a 79.3% lead leaves no ambiguity about which part is faster in these tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins with a score of 146,593 versus the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200's 69,774, a difference of 110.1%.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare between these two cards?

A: NVIDIA again wins, scoring 123,842 against AMD's 69,076, a 79.3% lead. It is a smaller margin than OpenCL but still a dominant victory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card in the database?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation averages 135,218, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870. The Ada card's average is roughly double the AMD card's.

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

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is in the 95th percentile, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 is in the 90th percentile.

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

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows two tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 loses both.

Q: How do the nearest rivals for each card compare in average score?

A: For the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, the closest rival is the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0% delta). For the Radeon Pro WX 8200, the closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (-0.2% delta). The Ada card's rival cluster is roughly twice as fast as the AMD card's rival cluster.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, implementing the Ada Lovelace architecture. It packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, running the older GCN 5.0 architecture. It holds 12,500 million transistors on a much larger 495 mm² die, with a density of just 25.3 million per square millimeter.

Feature support diverges sharply. The NVIDIA card includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, while the AMD part has neither (both fields are null in the database). NVIDIA's API support reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4; AMD tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different: NVIDIA uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, while AMD uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The AMD card's memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, versus NVIDIA's 2250 MHz and 18 Gbps effective. Despite the narrow bus, AMD's HBM2 delivers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher than NVIDIA's 360.0 GB/s.

Compute throughput also tells a story of architectural priorities. NVIDIA's FP32 rate is 26.73 TFLOPS with FP16 at the same 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). AMD's FP32 is 10.75 TFLOPS, but its FP16 doubles to 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). That 2:1 FP16 ratio on the GCN card suggests it was designed for workloads that could exploit packed math, but the absolute numbers still favor NVIDIA in both precision formats. The AMD card's shading units number 3,584 versus NVIDIA's 6,144, though AMD has more texture mapping units (224 versus 192). Both have 64 ROPs.

The process node difference is stark: 5 nm versus 14 nm. That alone explains much of the transistor density gap and likely contributes to the power and thermal behavior, though the database does not record measured power draw. The production status also differs: NVIDIA's card is listed as Active, while AMD's is End-of-life. Release dates are roughly five years apart, with AMD arriving in August 2018 and NVIDIA in August 2023.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Clock speeds: NVIDIA runs at 1500 MHz base and 2175 MHz boost; AMD runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory capacity: 20 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM2. Bus width: 160-bit versus 2048-bit. Bandwidth: 360.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units: 6,144 versus 3,584. TMUs: 192 versus 224. ROPs are equal at 64. RT cores and tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA card.

Pixel and texture rates follow the clock and unit counts. NVIDIA achieves 139.2 GPixel/s and 417.6 GTexel/s; AMD achieves 96.00 GPixel/s and 336.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 26.73 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS. FP16 is 26.73 TFLOPS versus 21.50 TFLOPS. Thermal design power: NVIDIA is 130 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W; AMD is 230 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W. Slot width: NVIDIA is single-slot, AMD is dual-slot. Power connectors: NVIDIA uses 1x 16-pin; AMD uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin.

Bus interface: NVIDIA is PCIe 4.0 x16; AMD is PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: NVIDIA has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a; AMD has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions: NVIDIA is 245 mm long and 112 mm high; AMD is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. Process node and foundry: 5 nm TSMC versus 14 nm GlobalFoundries. Transistors: 35,800 million versus 12,500 million. Die size: 294 mm² versus 495 mm². The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, stated here once as historical context; NVIDIA's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded benchmarks, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins every comparison. It takes Geekbench OpenCL by 110.1% and Geekbench Vulkan by 79.3%. Its average benchmark score of 135,218 is nearly double the AMD card's 69,870. It also holds a higher percentile ranking (95th versus 90th). In terms of architecture, it offers ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and a more modern API stack, all of which are absent or older on the AMD side.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 does have one notable advantage in the specification sheet: memory bandwidth. Its HBM2 configuration delivers 512.0 GB/s, which is 42% higher than NVIDIA's 360.0 GB/s. It also has more TMUs (224 versus 192) and a wider memory bus (2048-bit versus 160-bit). For workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound and do not scale with compute shader throughput, the AMD card could theoretically hold its own, but the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates memory bandwidth. The recorded OpenCL and Vulkan results show no scenario where AMD wins.

Another area where AMD is not penalized is FP16 throughput relative to its own FP32: it achieves 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. NVIDIA's FP16 is 1:1, so it does not gain extra throughput in half precision. However, NVIDIA's absolute FP16 number (26.73 TFLOPS) still exceeds AMD's (21.50 TFLOPS), so even in that favorable-for-AMD metric, the newer card comes out ahead.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 79.3% to 110.1%. Its average benchmark score is roughly double, and it sits five percentile points higher in the overall GPU distribution. It also brings modern features that the AMD card simply lacks: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and a 5 nm process that enables a 130 W TDP in a single-slot form factor.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is an end-of-life product from 2018, built on a 14 nm process with a 230 W TDP and dual-slot cooler. Its only specification wins are memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s) and TMU count (224 versus 192), but those advantages do not translate into any benchmark victory in the database. Its nearest rivals are older or lower-tier parts, and its average score is comparable to the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, which is itself a previous-generation product.

For buyers, the choice depends entirely on workload priorities. If the workload is compute-heavy, API-accelerated, or requires modern feature support, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear pick based on the numbers. If the workload is purely bandwidth-bound and can exploit the AMD card's HBM2 advantage, the WX 8200 might still be functional, but the database offers no evidence that it wins any real-world test. Given the active production status of the NVIDIA card and the end-of-life status of the AMD card, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the only sensible recommendation from the recorded data.