AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A5500 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the dominant performer in this comparison, winning both recorded benchmark tests by a substantial margin. The data shows the RTX A5500 delivers an average benchmark score of 165,217, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870, sitting in the 90th percentile. This gap is not marginal; it represents a generational leap in compute capability. The RTX A5500 leads by 150.3% in Geekbench OpenCL and 125.5% in Geekbench Vulkan, making it the clear choice for workloads that prioritize raw compute throughput. The WX 8200, while older and less powerful, remains a functional workstation card, but its performance class is fundamentally different from the A5500.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins in every category where the two were measured. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 174,637 against the WX 8200's 69,774, a delta of 150.3% in favor of NVIDIA. This test is a strong indicator of general-purpose compute performance across a wide range of tasks, including rendering, simulation, and data processing. The A5500's lead is so large that it effectively doubles the output of the AMD card in this workload. Similarly, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A5500 scores 155,797 versus the WX 8200's 69,076, a 125.5% advantage. Vulkan is often used in real-time visualization and modern graphics APIs, and here too the NVIDIA card is clearly superior.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 does not have a single benchmark win in the recorded data. Its only unique metric is a Geekbench Metal score of 70,759, which the RTX A5500 was not tested for, so no direct comparison exists. This means that for any workload represented by the shared tests, the WX 8200 falls behind. However, the WX 8200's performance profile is not without merit in context: its average score of 69,870 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, a -0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140, a -0.4% delta). This places it in the same performance tier as those older or mobile workstation parts, making it a viable option for legacy applications that do not require the massive compute headroom of the A5500. The A5500, by contrast, sits near the top of the database, with rivals like the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894, 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, -0.5% delta) showing it is competitive with modern high-end workstation cards.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA RTX A5500 if your work depends on heavy parallel compute. The benchmark results are unambiguous: it outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 by 150.3% in OpenCL and 125.5% in Vulkan. This translates directly into faster rendering times, quicker simulation iterations, and smoother real-time visualization. The A5500 also offers a significant memory advantage with 24 GB of GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus, yielding 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the WX 8200's 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus at 512.0 GB/s. For large datasets, complex scenes, or multi-tasking across applications, that extra capacity is decisive. The A5500's 10,240 shading units and 80 RT cores also provide a hardware foundation for ray-traced workloads that the WX 8200, with 3,584 shading units and no RT cores, simply cannot match.

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 only if your software is tied to older GCN-era optimizations or if you specifically need a card with a 2018-era feature set. The data shows it is not a competitive alternative to the A5500 in raw performance. Its launch MSRP was 999 USD, but the database does not record a price for the A5500, so any cost comparison cannot be made from these facts. The WX 8200's 90th percentile ranking means it outperforms most GPUs on the market, but within this head-to-head, it is outclassed. Its strength lies in its compatibility with legacy drivers and its HBM2 memory, which, while smaller in capacity, offers respectable bandwidth for its era. For users running older professional applications that do not leverage modern APIs or multi-threaded compute, the WX 8200 remains functional, but it is not a forward-looking investment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the NVIDIA RTX A5500 comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 174,637 against the WX 8200's 69,774. This 150.3% delta is the single biggest gap in the comparison. OpenCL is a cross-platform API used in many professional tools for general-purpose GPU compute, from video encoding to scientific analysis. The A5500's score suggests it handles these tasks with more than double the efficiency of the WX 8200. The architecture explains this: the A5500 uses the Ampere design on an 8 nm Samsung process, with 28,300 million transistors, while the WX 8200 uses GCN 5.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 12,500 million transistors. More transistors, a denser design, and newer architecture all contribute to the A5500's dominance.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A5500 scores 155,797 versus the WX 8200's 69,076, a 125.5% advantage. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API that is increasingly common in professional visualization and game-engine work. The A5500's lead here is slightly smaller than in OpenCL, but still overwhelming. This likely reflects the WX 8200's older GCN architecture, which was not designed with modern low-level API efficiency in mind. The A5500 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the WX 8200 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. This means the A5500 is ready for the latest graphics features, including hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the WX 8200 lacks entirely.

The WX 8200's only recorded benchmark outside of these two is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 70,759. The RTX A5500 has no Metal score in the database, so no comparison is possible. This omission is notable because Metal is Apple's graphics API, and the WX 8200's score suggests it is a capable card for macOS-based workflows. However, the A5500's absence from that test means the database cannot confirm its Metal performance, leaving a gap in the analysis. For the tests that do overlap, the A5500 wins by margins that are not merely incremental but transformative, indicating that the WX 8200 is a full generation or more behind in compute capability.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A5500 than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A5500 scores 174,637 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the WX 8200 scores 69,774. This is a 150.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The WX 8200 has zero wins in the shared tests. It only has a Geekbench Metal score of 70,759, which the RTX A5500 was not tested for.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 has 80 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has no RT cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RTX A5500's average score of 165,217 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894) and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094). The WX 8200's average of 69,870 is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140).

Q: What are the process node and transistor differences?

A: The RTX A5500 uses an 8 nm process from Samsung with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The WX 8200 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is built on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA102 chip, which is a major departure from the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200's GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip. Ampere introduces a unified design with 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 80 dedicated RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The tensor cores are critical for AI and deep learning workloads, providing hardware acceleration for matrix operations that the WX 8200 lacks entirely. The WX 8200, with 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, is based on a design that predates these specialized cores, making it incapable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing or tensor-based AI inference.

The process technology further separates these cards. The A5500 uses an 8 nm node from Samsung, achieving a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm², while the WX 8200 uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries with a density of 25.3 million per mm². This density advantage allows the A5500 to pack 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, compared to the WX 8200's 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The result is a massive increase in raw compute: the A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS. For FP16, the A5500 maintains a 1:1 ratio at 34.10 TFLOPS, while the WX 8200 offers 21.50 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA card is also more efficient in half-precision workloads.

The memory subsystems also reflect architectural differences. The A5500 uses GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, while the WX 8200 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The HBM2 is stacked closer to the GPU, reducing latency, but the A5500's higher clock speed (2000 MHz effective 16 Gbps versus 1000 MHz effective 2 Gbps) and larger capacity give it a bandwidth advantage of 768.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. The A5500 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, which affects data transfer speeds with the host system. In terms of display outputs, the A5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the WX 8200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, a minor physical difference but functionally similar.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 has a base clock of 1080 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz. The A5500's higher boost clock, combined with its larger shader count, is why it achieves such high fill rates: 159.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 532.8 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the WX 8200's 96.00 GPixel/s and 336.0 GTexel/s. Both cards have a TDP of 230 W and require a dual-slot cooler, but the A5500 uses a single 8-pin power connector while the WX 8200 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

The memory differs as noted: 24 GB GDDR6 versus 8 GB HBM2. The A5500's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the WX 8200's is 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The bus width is 384-bit for the A5500 and 2048-bit for the WX 8200, but the A5500 still achieves higher bandwidth. The A5500 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 8200 is on PCIe 3.0 x16. The A5500's API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A5500 has no launch MSRP recorded, while the WX 8200's launch MSRP was 999 USD. The release dates are also far apart: the A5500 launched on 2022-03-21, while the WX 8200 launched on 2018-08-12, a gap that explains the performance disparity. Both are now end-of-life products, but the A5500's newer architecture and larger resource pool make it the superior choice for any modern professional workload.