AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A4500 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200: a comparison between two end-of-life workstation cards from different architectural eras. The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA card, with a 2-0 win tally in the head-to-head tests. The RTX A4500 achieves an average benchmark score of 91,671, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870, sitting in the 90th percentile. The raw performance gap between the two is substantial, and the specific test results reveal the scale of the generational leap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were directly compared in two compute-oriented tests, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 won both by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A4500 scored 141,837 against the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s 69,774. This represents a delta of 103.3%, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than twice as fast in this workload. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete tier separation. The Radeon Pro WX 8200’s OpenCL result is roughly half of the RTX A4500’s, which underscores how much raw compute throughput the newer Ampere architecture brings to the table.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though slightly less extreme. The RTX A4500 scored 129,980, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 managed 69,076. The delta here is 88.2%, again a massive margin. The fact that the NVIDIA card wins by nearly 90% in Vulkan suggests its advantage is not limited to a single API or compute model; it extends across different rendering and compute interfaces. The Radeon Pro WX 8200’s Vulkan score is actually slightly lower than its own OpenCL score, while the RTX A4500’s Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score but still far ahead.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX A4500 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,196, which the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no comparable result for. On the AMD side, there is a Geekbench Metal score of 70,759, a test the NVIDIA card does not have a listed result for. These disparate test lists make the head-to-head comparison incomplete, but the two shared tests are unambiguous. The RTX A4500’s closest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, which sits just 0.9% below its average score. Conversely, the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s nearest competitor is the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, which is 1.3% slower. This positioning shows that the Radeon Pro WX 8200 competes with older or specialized NVIDIA parts, while the RTX A4500 is ranked alongside much faster accelerators.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is built on the GA102 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, by contrast, uses the Vega 10 chip with the GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has more than double the transistors, which directly explains its compute advantage.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The RTX A4500 features 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. It also includes dedicated hardware for ray tracing with 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores, reflecting its modern feature set. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It has no RT cores and no tensor cores, meaning it lacks the specialized acceleration for ray-traced workloads and AI inference that the NVIDIA card provides. The raw FP32 compute throughput tells the story: 23.65 TFLOPS for the RTX A4500 versus 10.75 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro WX 8200. Interestingly, the AMD card has an FP16 rate of 21.50 TFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate due to a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card offers 23.65 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The RTX A4500 uses 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 640.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. Despite the much wider bus on the AMD card, its bandwidth is lower. The NVIDIA card also has 2.5 times the memory capacity, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Clock speeds favor the AMD card in base frequency (1200 MHz vs 1050 MHz), but the NVIDIA card boosts higher (1650 MHz vs 1500 MHz). The effective memory speed is vastly different: 16 Gbps for the RTX A4500 versus 2 Gbps for the Radeon Pro WX 8200, though the latter's HBM2 interface compensates partially.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: the NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the superior card for essentially every compute and rendering workload represented in the benchmarks. Its 103.3% lead in OpenCL and 88.2% lead in Vulkan are not close calls. The RTX A4500 also holds a 93rd percentile ranking versus the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s 90th percentile, and its average benchmark score is 31.2% higher (91,671 vs 69,870). For users who rely on OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, the RTX A4500 delivers roughly double the performance of the Radeon Pro WX 8200.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 does have a relevant niche. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, which is just 0.2% faster, and it trades blows with the RTX A3000 Mobile (0.4% slower) and the RX 6600 LE (1.4% slower). This indicates it competes with earlier-generation or lower-tier cards. Its strength lies in its HBM2 memory, which offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth despite the smaller 8 GB capacity, and its FP16 compute rate of 21.50 TFLOPS, which is close to the RTX A4500’s FP32 rate. For specific FP16-heavy workloads that do not require large memory pools, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 could be relevant, but the lack of RT and tensor cores limits its versatility.

The RTX A4500’s nearest rivals are the RTX A4500 Mobile (0.6% faster) and the Radeon Instinct MI60 (0.9% faster), as well as the Quadro GP100 (4.8% slower) and Radeon PRO W7600 (5.2% slower). This places it in a performance class well above the Radeon Pro WX 8200. The verdict is straightforward: pick the RTX A4500 unless the workload specifically benefits from the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s unique characteristics, such as its HBM2 memory type or its 2:1 FP16 ratio, and even then the performance gap is likely too large to overcome.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The RTX A4500 uses an 8 nm process and has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses a 14 nm process with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. Shading units are 7,168 versus 3,584, TMUs are identical at 224, and ROPs are 96 versus 64. The RTX A4500 has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores; the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has none.

Clock speeds differ: base 1050 MHz versus 1200 MHz, boost 1650 MHz versus 1500 MHz. Memory configurations are entirely different: 20 GB GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus versus 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. Bandwidth is 640.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. FP32 compute is 23.65 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS. FP16 is 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 369.6 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s.

Power and connectivity also diverge. The RTX A4500 has a TDP of 200 W with a single 8-pin power connector, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a TDP of 230 W with a 6-pin plus 8-pin configuration. Both require a 550 W suggested PSU. The RTX A4500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support differs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, and both have OpenGL 4.6. The RTX A4500 has a launch MSRP available? No, it does not; the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. Dimensions are nearly identical at 267 mm length and 112 mm height for the RTX A4500 versus 267 mm and 111 mm for the Radeon Pro WX 8200.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500, with 23.65 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s 10.75 TFLOPS.

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

A: No, it has no RT cores listed, while the RTX A4500 includes 56 RT cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The RTX A4500 achieves 640.0 GB/s, which is higher than the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RTX A4500 has 28,300 million transistors, compared to 12,500 million on the Radeon Pro WX 8200.

Q: What is the average benchmark score gap?

A: The RTX A4500 averages 91,671, which is 31.2% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 8200’s 69,870.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 wins in every benchmark category where both cards have results. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 103.3%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 88.2%. This makes it the clear choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks, Vulkan rendering, and any workload that can leverage its 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 performance. Its 20 GB memory capacity is suited for large models, high-resolution textures, or multi-app workflows. The presence of 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores gives it a decisive advantage in ray-traced rendering and AI-assisted tasks, even though these are not directly benchmarked here. Its lower TDP of 200 W, despite higher performance, is also notable.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, but it does hold specific specification advantages. Its FP16 rate of 21.50 TFLOPS is close to the RTX A4500’s 23.65 TFLOPS, and its 2:1 FP16 ratio could make it competitive in workloads that are heavily FP16-bound, where it can theoretically output at nearly the same rate as the RTX A4500’s FP32. Its HBM2 memory, while smaller at 8 GB, offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which may be sufficient for certain bandwidth-sensitive tasks that do not require large capacity. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 also has a higher base clock (1200 MHz vs 1050 MHz), which could help in lightly-threaded or latency-sensitive scenarios. Its 230 W TDP is higher, but its dual-connector setup (6-pin + 8-pin) may be more flexible for certain power supplies, though both require a 550 W PSU.

For practical use, the RTX A4500 is the default pick for any modern workstation workload. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is only relevant for legacy software that might be optimized for GCN architecture or for specific FP16-heavy compute pipelines where its 2:1 throughput ratio can be exploited. The data, however, shows that even in those cases, the RTX A4500’s raw power is likely to dominate. The Radeon Pro WX 8200’s closest competitors are the Quadro P6000 and RTX A3000 Mobile, not the RTX A4500, which indicates it is simply in a lower performance tier. Users with existing Radeon Pro WX 8200 deployments may find it adequate for older workloads, but for new purchases, the RTX A4500 is the data-supported winner.