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

The database pits two workstation cards from very different eras against each other: NVIDIA's compact RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, an active product built on Ada Lovelace, and AMD's Radeon Pro WX 8200, an end-of-life GCN 5.0 design. The recorded data shows a decisive gap, with the Ada card winning every shared benchmark by a wide margin. What makes the comparison interesting is not who wins, but how the underlying architectures explain the margin, and whether the WX 8200's unusually wide memory bus gives it any lasting relevance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in both records, and both go to NVIDIA.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada scored 124812 against the WX 8200's 69774, a 78.9% advantage. That is close to a generational doubling of compute throughput in a general-purpose GPU workload, and it aligns with the raw FP32 figures: 19.17 TFLOPS for the Ada card versus 10.75 TFLOPS for the Vega-based board.

Geekbench Vulkan narrows the gap but does not flip it. The Ada card recorded 109364 while the WX 8200 managed 69076, leaving NVIDIA ahead by 58.3%. The Vulkan delta being smaller than the OpenCL delta is worth noting: it suggests the WX 8200's graphics pipeline holds up somewhat better than its compute path, yet nowhere near well enough to threaten the lead.

The head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD. The WX 8200 does hold a Geekbench Metal result of 70759, but the Ada card has no Metal entry, so that score cannot be compared directly.

Context matters here too. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 117088, meaning it outperforms roughly 95% of recorded hardware. The WX 8200's average of 69870 places it in the 90th percentile, still a strong showing in absolute terms but a tier below in this pairing.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent opposite ends of a process-node spectrum. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada uses TSMC's 5 nm node with the AD104 chip, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, a density of 121.8M per mm². The WX 8200's Vega 10 chip, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on 14 nm, carries 12,500 million transistors across a much larger 495 mm² die, at only 25.3M per mm². Nearly three times the transistors on a smaller die: that single contrast explains much of the performance story.

Core counts favor NVIDIA in shading, with 6144 shading units against 3584, though AMD counters with more texture units, 224 versus 192. Both have 64 render output units. NVIDIA adds hardware the WX 8200 simply lacks: 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. AMD's card has neither, reflecting the feature expectations of its era.

Clock behavior differs in shape. The WX 8200 starts higher at a 1200 MHz base against 720 MHz, but the Ada card boosts higher at 1560 MHz versus 1500 MHz. Memory is where AMD staked its design: HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, dwarfing the Ada card's GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus at 280.0 GB/s. The trade is capacity, 8 GB for AMD versus 20 GB for NVIDIA, a 2.5x difference that matters for large datasets and textures.

Half-precision throughput tells a subtle story. The WX 8200's FP16 rate of 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1 over FP32) actually exceeds the Ada card's 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1). For workloads that are strictly FP16, the older card's rate arithmetic gives it a nominal edge, though the benchmark data shows no evidence this translates into real-world wins.

Power and physical footprints diverge sharply. The Ada card runs at a 70 W TDP with no power connectors, slot-powered, dual-slot, and 168 mm long with a 69 mm height. The WX 8200 draws 230 W through one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, stretches to 267 mm and 111 mm tall, and suggests a 550 W PSU against NVIDIA's 250 W recommendation. Interface generation differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the Ada card, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the WX 8200.

Software support leans modern on NVIDIA's side: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 versus DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, with both offering OpenGL 4.6. Both cards provide four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The Verdict

Every measured outcome points the same direction. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada wins both shared benchmarks, by 78.9% in OpenCL and 58.3% in Vulkan, delivers nearly twice the FP32 compute, carries 2.5x the memory capacity, includes ray tracing and tensor hardware the AMD card lacks, and does all of it at less than a third of the power draw with no auxiliary power cables. Its production status is Active, while the WX 8200 is End-of-life.

The data supports a clear recommendation: for any workload represented in the database, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada is the stronger choice, and its small form factor and slot-only power make it viable in compact systems the WX 8200 physically cannot fit.

The case for the WX 8200 rests on two untested-in-this-matchup qualities: its 512.0 GB/s of HBM2 bandwidth, nearly double the Ada card's, and its nominally higher FP16 rate. If a specific workload is bandwidth-bound at FP16 precision, the recorded data cannot rule in the Ada card's favor. That is a narrow exception, and the benchmark scores suggest it rarely materializes. The WX 8200's launch MSRP was 999 USD, stated here for the record.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the shared benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada wins both. It leads Geekbench OpenCL 124812 to 69774 (78.9%) and Geekbench Vulkan 109364 to 69076 (58.3%).

Q: How do the cards compare against the rest of the database?

A: The Ada card sits in the 95th percentile with an average score of 117088; the WX 8200 is in the 90th percentile with an average of 69870.

Q: Does the WX 8200 have any hardware advantage?

A: Yes, in raw specs. Its HBM2 memory delivers 512.0 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s, and its FP16 rate of 21.50 TFLOPS exceeds the Ada card's 19.17 TFLOPS. It also has more texture units, 224 versus 192.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Ada card has a 70 W TDP and needs no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The WX 8200 runs at 230 W, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing and AI acceleration?

A: Only the RTX 4000 SFF Ada, with 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The WX 8200 has neither.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada is Active; the Radeon Pro WX 8200 is End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

RTX 4000 SFF Ada wins:

• General GPU compute (OpenCL, 78.9% ahead)
• Graphics API workloads (Vulkan, 58.3% ahead)
• FP32-heavy rendering and simulation (19.17 vs 10.75 TFLOPS)
• Large datasets and scenes (20 GB vs 8 GB memory)
• Ray tracing and tensor workloads (48 RT cores, 192 tensor cores vs none)
• Small-form-factor and slot-powered builds (70 W, no connectors, 168 mm length)
• Modern API features (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4)

Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins:

• Bandwidth-hungry workloads that fit in 8 GB (512.0 vs 280.0 GB/s)
• Strictly FP16-rate-bound tasks (21.50 vs 19.17 TFLOPS FP16)
• Systems where its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface matches an older platform

Specification Differences

| Field | RTX 4000 SFF Ada | Radeon Pro WX 8200 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | AD104 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 5.0 |

| Process node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 12,500 million |

| Die size | 294 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor density | 121.8M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 720 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1560 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory | 20 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB HBM2 |

| Bus width | 160 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 280.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 6144 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 192 | 224 |

| RT cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor cores | 192 | None |

| FP32 | 19.17 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) | 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 230 W |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 168 mm | 267 mm |

| Height | 69 mm | 111 mm |

| Release date | 2023-03-20 | 2018-08-12 |

| Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 999 USD |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 95 | 90 |