AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile across the two shared benchmark tests. The AMD card wins both head-to-head matchups, with the largest margin appearing in the Vulkan test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774 against the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile’s 48,703. That is a 43.3% advantage for the AMD part. The gap is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan, where AMD posts 69,076 versus NVIDIA’s 46,782, a 47.7% lead. These are substantial margins, not minor incremental differences. The AMD card delivers roughly half again as much raw compute throughput in both API workloads.

Context from the nearest rivals in the database reinforces this. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200’s average benchmark score of 69,870 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140). It sits 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). The WX 8200 is essentially trading blows with those desktop-class cards, landing in the 90th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The RTX A1000 Mobile, by contrast, averages 47,743 across its two recorded benchmarks. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT at 48,477 (1.5% ahead of the A1000), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46,702 (2.2% behind), the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (2.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (2.5% behind). The A1000 Mobile sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, five points below the WX 8200.

What the head-to-head numbers do not show is a single test where the NVIDIA part closes the gap. Wins tally 2-0 in favor of AMD. The smallest delta, 43.3% in OpenCL, is still a commanding lead. The largest, 47.7% in Vulkan, suggests AMD’s architecture handles both APIs with similar efficiency relative to its competitor. For workloads that rely on either OpenCL or Vulkan, the data points clearly to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 as the higher-performing product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins with a score of 69,076, which is 47.7% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile’s 46,782.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774 versus 48,703 for the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile, a 43.3% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870 across three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan). The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile averages 47,743 across two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan).

Q: How do the two compare in overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 sits in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile sits in the 85th percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile have any benchmark win over the AMD card?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins both recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), giving it a 2-0 win tally.

Q: What rival does the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile most closely match?

A: Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, which scores 48,477, just 1.5% ahead of the A1000 Mobile’s 47,743 average.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. AMD’s Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. NVIDIA’s RTX A1000 Mobile uses the GA107 chip based on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is significant: AMD’s 14 nm node is older and larger, while NVIDIA’s 8 nm node is more advanced, allowing higher transistor density. The AMD chip packs 12,500 million transistors across a 495 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.3 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per mm². In other words, NVIDIA fits nearly 72% more transistors per square millimeter, despite having fewer total transistors.

Core configuration differs sharply. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. AMD leads in every traditional shader count category. However, NVIDIA adds hardware that AMD lacks entirely in this comparison: 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. These are not present on the AMD card at all, reflecting the architectural split between GCN 5.0 and Ampere. The RTX A1000 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 versus AMD’s Vulkan 1.3.

Clock behavior also diverges. The AMD card runs at a 1200 MHz base clock and 1500 MHz boost clock, while the NVIDIA part runs at 630 MHz base and 1140 MHz boost. AMD’s much higher clocks help explain its large compute advantage. The AMD memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective data rate, while NVIDIA’s memory clock is 1375 MHz with 11 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA chip’s GDDR6 memory operates at a much higher effective speed, but the bus width and total bandwidth tell a different story.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 176.0 GB/s. AMD’s bandwidth advantage is nearly 3x, a direct consequence of the wide HBM2 interface. The NVIDIA card’s smaller bus and GDDR6 type limit its memory throughput, which matters for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Compute rates follow the core counts. The AMD card delivers 10.75 TFLOPS of FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA card delivers 4.669 TFLOPS of FP32 and 4.669 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. AMD leads FP32 by roughly 2.3x and FP16 by roughly 4.6x, but NVIDIA’s 1:1 FP16 ratio means it does not double FP16 throughput the way AMD does. Pixel and texture rates also favor AMD: 96.00 GPixel/s and 336.0 GTexel/s versus 36.48 GPixel/s and 72.96 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile diverge on nearly every specification field. Manufacturer and architecture are different: AMD on GCN 5.0 with the Vega 10 chip versus NVIDIA on Ampere with the GA107 chip. Process nodes differ at 14 nm versus 8 nm, and foundries differ at GlobalFoundries versus Samsung. Transistor counts are 12,500 million versus 8,700 million, die sizes are 495 mm² versus 200 mm², and transistor densities are 25.3M versus 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD card runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA card runs at 630 MHz base and 1140 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory configurations differ completely: 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Core counts differ, with AMD holding 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus NVIDIA’s 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA adds 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which AMD does not list. Pixel rate is 96.00 GPixel/s for AMD versus 36.48 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 336.0 GTexel/s versus 72.96 GTexel/s. FP32 is 10.75 TFLOPS versus 4.669 TFLOPS. FP16 is 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.669 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications differ as well. AMD’s TDP is 230 W with a dual-slot cooler, requiring a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested 550 W power supply. NVIDIA’s TDP is 60 W, designed as an IGP (integrated GPU) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the NVIDIA card has no recorded physical dimensions. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for AMD versus “Portable Device Dependent” for NVIDIA. Release dates are 2018-08-12 for AMD and 2022-03-29 for NVIDIA. The AMD card has a recorded launch MSRP of 999 USD, which was stated once here per database policy. Production status is end-of-life for both. Predecessors and successors differ: AMD’s predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and successor is Radeon Pro Vega; NVIDIA’s predecessor is Quadro Turing-M and successor is Ada-MW.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload and form factor. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the stronger performer in raw compute benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests with margins above 43%, holds a 90th percentile ranking, and averages 69,870 across its three recorded tests. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 10.75 TFLOPS FP32, and 3,584 shading units make it a heavy-duty workstation part. Users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads that are not limited by power or size will find the AMD card substantially faster.

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile is a different class of product. Its 60 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors point to mobile or compact systems where the AMD card’s 230 W dual-slot design would not fit. The NVIDIA part offers 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, features absent from the AMD card, plus newer API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. Its 4 GB GDDR6 memory and 176.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but its 43.5M transistors per mm² density on an 8 nm node shows a more modern design.

For pure benchmark performance, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the choice. The numbers are unambiguous: 43.3% ahead in OpenCL, 47.7% ahead in Vulkan, and a 22,127-point average score gap. For a system that prioritizes ray tracing, tensor operations, or minimal power draw, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile has the architectural features and efficiency profile that the AMD card cannot match. The verdict is not about which GPU is better overall, but which fits the intended use case. The AMD card dominates the compute benchmarks; the NVIDIA card wins on efficiency, portability, and feature set. Buyers with desktop workstation power budgets should favor AMD. Buyers with mobile or low-power constraints should favor NVIDIA.