AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 records an average score of 69,870, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 averages 46,043, which lands in the 85th percentile.

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,774, which is 3.1% higher than the RTX A2000’s 67,695 in the same test. This is a clear win for AMD in raw compute throughput.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 edges out a narrow victory with a score of 69,089 versus the AMD’s 69,076. The difference rounds to 0%, so this is effectively a statistical tie.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX A2000 includes dedicated hardware: 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no such units listed, relying on its GCN 5.0 shader array instead.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 draws a 230 W TDP and recommends a 550 W power supply, requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, recommends a 250 W PSU, and needs no external power connectors.

The Verdict

The data splits these two cards into very different roles. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the higher-performing part overall: its average score of 69,870 beats the RTX A2000’s 46,043 by a substantial margin. In percentile terms, the AMD sits at 90 versus the NVIDIA’s 85, meaning the WX 8200 outperforms a larger share of the GPU field.

However, the RTX A2000 is not without its own territory. It wins the Vulkan head-to-head, albeit by a hair, and it brings modern features the AMD lacks entirely: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The A2000 also consumes a fraction of the power (70 W vs 230 W), uses a smaller die (276 mm² vs 495 mm²), and fits in a much shorter card (167 mm vs 267 mm).

So who should pick which? If the workload is pure compute, especially OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the clear choice. Its 3.1% OpenCL advantage and much higher average score point to raw horsepower. If the workload involves ray tracing, AI inference via tensor cores, or needs to fit into a compact, low-power chassis, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the only sensible pick. The A2000 also has a lower launch MSRP of 449 USD versus the WX 8200’s 999 USD, but that is a one-time statement of list price, not a value judgment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two direct benchmark comparisons in the database: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Each card wins one.

Geekbench OpenCL: AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins by 3.1%

The AMD scores 69,774 against the NVIDIA’s 67,695. This is a decisive margin in a compute-centric workload. The WX 8200’s 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) clearly out-muscle the A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The AMD also has far higher texture and pixel rates: 336.0 GTexel/s and 96.00 GPixel/s versus the A2000’s 124.8 GTexel/s and 57.60 GPixel/s. That gap in raw throughput explains the OpenCL result.

Geekbench Vulkan: NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins by 0%

The scores are 69,089 for the NVIDIA and 69,076 for the AMD. The delta is effectively zero, meaning neither card has a meaningful advantage in this API. It is notably the A2000’s Vulkan support is version 1.4, while the WX 8200 supports Vulkan 1.3. The newer API version may account for the tiny edge, but the performance is indistinguishable.

Outside these two tests, the database shows a wider gap. The AMD’s average score of 69,870 sits far above the NVIDIA’s 46,043, but that average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result for the A2000 (1,345) which the AMD does not have. That low 3DMark score drags down the NVIDIA’s average, so the average comparison is not apples-to-apples. The direct OpenCL and Vulkan tests are the fairer measure.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 | NVIDIA RTX A2000 |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 12,000 million |

| Transistor Density | 25.3M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1200 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1500 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 2048 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 224 | 104 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 96.00 GPixel/s | 57.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.0 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.75 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 70 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| PCIe Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Card Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 167 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Card Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on GCN 5.0 using the Vega 10 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, for a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The architecture has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores; all compute flows through 3584 shading units.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA106 chip, made on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It has 12,000 million transistors in a much smaller 276 mm² die, achieving 43.5M transistors per mm², which is roughly 72% higher density. Ampere brings 26 dedicated ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, plus support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The AMD only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The AMD uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, giving 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, giving 288.0 GB/s. The AMD also leads in FP16 throughput, hitting 21.50 TFLOPS versus the NVIDIA’s 7.987 TFLOPS, but the NVIDIA does FP16 at a 1:1 rate, meaning no performance penalty for half-precision work.

The cards also differ in clock behavior. The AMD has a 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA starts at 562 MHz base and boosts to 1200 MHz. The NVIDIA compensates with a newer process and lower power draw, but the AMD’s raw clocks are substantially higher.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 wins in:

• Raw compute workloads that stress FP32 and FP16: its 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.50 TFLOPS FP16 are far ahead of the NVIDIA’s 7.987 TFLOPS in both.
• Memory bandwidth-heavy tasks: 512.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s means faster data movement for large datasets, typical of scientific or simulation workloads.
• Texture and pixel fill rates: 336.0 GTexel/s and 96.00 GPixel/s dwarf the A2000’s 124.8 GTexel/s and 57.60 GPixel/s, helping in rasterization-heavy scenes.
• OpenCL performance: the 3.1% direct win in Geekbench OpenCL confirms its compute advantage.
• Overall benchmark percentile: 90th versus 85th, meaning it ranks higher against the full GPU database.

NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins in:

• Ray tracing and AI inference: the 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores are features the AMD simply does not have. Any workload that uses these will only run on the NVIDIA.
• Power efficiency: 70 W TDP versus 230 W, with no external power connectors required. The A2000 can run in systems where the AMD would need a 550 W PSU and 6-pin plus 8-pin cables.
• Physical footprint: 167 mm length and 69 mm height versus 267 mm and 111 mm. The A2000 fits in compact chassis and low-profile builds.
• Modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, versus the AMD’s DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. This matters for newer game engines and future-proofing.
• Vulkan compute: the A2000 edges out the WX 8200 in Geekbench Vulkan, albeit by a negligible margin.
• PCIe 4.0: the A2000 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. This provides double the bus bandwidth for data transfer, relevant in multi-GPU or high-I/O scenarios.