AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA Tesla T4

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a split decision between these two workstation accelerators. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 posts a score of 69,774, defeating the NVIDIA Tesla T4’s 61,276 by a substantial 13.9% margin. This is the WX 8200’s clearest victory, showcasing its raw compute throughput in a cross-vendor API environment. Conversely, the Tesla T4 strikes back in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 72,190 against the WX 8200’s 69,076, a 4.3% advantage that flips the narrative. That Vulkan win is notable not just for the margin but for the absolute number—72,190 is the highest single benchmark score recorded for either card in this comparison.

Looking at aggregate performance, the WX 8200 holds a higher average benchmark score of 69,870 across all tested workloads, while the Tesla T4 averages 66,733. That difference of roughly 3,137 points translates to a 4.7% overall lead for AMD. Both cards land in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they sit in the same tier of overall performance, but the WX 8200 edges ahead when averaging across APIs. The OpenCL gap is the dominant factor in that aggregate result, as the WX 8200’s 13.9% advantage there outweighs the Tesla T4’s smaller Vulkan lead.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces these standings. The WX 8200’s average score of 69,870 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) and 0.4% of the RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140), while running 1.3% ahead of the CMP 90HX (69,000) and 1.4% behind the RX 6600 LE (70,829). The Tesla T4, by contrast, sits 1.1% above the Radeon VII (66,004), 2.5% above the Tesla P40 (65,095), but trails the Instinct MI25 (68,562) by 2.7% and the Arc A770 (68,809) by 3.0%. These deltas show that while both cards are competitive in their respective peer groups, the WX 8200 sits closer to the top of its cluster, whereas the T4 has more headroom in rivals above it.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The NVIDIA Tesla T4 employs the TU104 chip with Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm node, with 13,600 million transistors across a larger 545 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 25.0M per mm². While the T4 has more transistors and a bigger die, the WX 8200 achieves higher density per square millimeter, reflecting the older but denser GCN layout.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 across a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla T4 counters with 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but that wider capacity comes at a cost: only 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a 37.5% reduction. For memory-bound workloads, the WX 8200’s HBM2 advantage is decisive. Clock behavior also differs—the WX 8200 runs at a 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, while the T4 idles at a low 585 MHz base but boosts to 1590 MHz, suggesting a power-optimized curve that relies on burst performance.

Compute resources tell a story of divergence in design priorities. The WX 8200 fields 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 96.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 336.0 GTexel/s. The T4 has fewer shading units (2560) and TMUs (160), but matches the ROP count at 64; its pixel rate is higher at 101.8 GPixel/s, yet its texture rate drops to 254.4 GTexel/s. The WX 8200’s FP32 throughput of 10.75 TFLOPS towers over the T4’s 8.141 TFLOPS, a 32% advantage in single-precision compute. Both cards hit FP16 at a 2:1 ratio—21.50 TFLOPS for AMD and 16.28 TFLOPS for NVIDIA—but the WX 8200 starts from a higher base.

The Tesla T4 introduces dedicated hardware absent from the WX 8200: 40 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores. These are Turing-specific features that enable RT acceleration and AI inference workloads, respectively. The WX 8200 has no equivalent units, relying purely on GCN’s shader-based approach. API support also differs—the T4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 8200 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both share OpenGL 4.6. Power and physical design reflect their intended environments: the WX 8200 draws 230 W with a dual-slot cooler and dual power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), while the T4 sips 70 W in a single-slot form factor with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The WX 8200 dominates in raw compute and memory bandwidth. Its 13.9% OpenCL victory over the T4 is the headline result, driven by the 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 512.0 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth. For workloads that stress general-purpose GPU compute—scientific simulation, rendering, or data processing where OpenCL is the API—the WX 8200 is the clear choice. The 224 TMUs and 336.0 GTexel/s texture rate also give it an edge in texture-heavy tasks, even if the T4’s higher pixel rate (101.8 vs 96.00 GPixel/s) narrows that gap in rasterization. The 8 GB HBM2 frame buffer, while smaller in capacity, offers far higher bandwidth than the T4’s GDDR6, which matters for large datasets that fit within that limit.

The Tesla T4 wins in Vulkan performance and capacity. Its 72,190 Vulkan score is 4.3% ahead of the WX 8200, suggesting better optimization for modern graphics APIs and games that leverage Vulkan’s low-level access. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory doubles the WX 8200’s capacity, making the T4 more suitable for large models or datasets that exceed 8 GB—a critical factor in machine learning inference or massive scene loading. The tensor cores (320 of them) and ray tracing cores (40) give the T4 dedicated acceleration for AI workloads and real-time ray tracing, features the WX 8200 lacks entirely. Its 70 W TDP and single-slot design with no power connectors also make it far easier to deploy in dense server environments, where the WX 8200’s 230 W draw and dual-slot footprint create thermal and spatial constraints.

The T4 also holds a slight pixel rate advantage (101.8 vs 96.00 GPixel/s), which benefits fill-rate-bound scenarios. The WX 8200 counters with a higher texture rate (336.0 vs 254.4 GTexel/s), so the split is workload-dependent: pixel-heavy effects favor NVIDIA, texture-heavy scenes favor AMD. In terms of nearest rivals, the WX 8200’s average score sits 1.3% above the CMP 90HX and only 0.2% below the Quadro P6000, indicating it competes with top-tier workstation cards. The T4’s 2.5% lead over the Tesla P40 shows it’s a solid upgrade in that lineage, but its 3.0% deficit to the Arc A770 reveals gaps in raw compute that the WX 8200 avoids.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. Choose the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 if your priority is raw compute performance and memory bandwidth. Its 13.9% OpenCL lead over the T4, combined with 512.0 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth and 10.75 TFLOPS FP32, makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute, rendering, and texture-intensive workloads. The 90th percentile ranking and proximity to the Quadro P6000 (within 0.2%) confirm it as a high-tier performer. It also wins the aggregate benchmark comparison, averaging 69,870 versus the T4’s 66,733.

Choose the NVIDIA Tesla T4 if you need capacity, modern API features, or deployment flexibility. The 16 GB GDDR6 doubles the WX 8200’s memory, and the Vulkan performance advantage (72,190 vs 69,076) indicates better support for next-gen graphics APIs. The tensor cores and ray tracing cores are absent from the AMD card, making the T4 the only option here for AI inference or RT workflows. Its 70 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors mean it slots into existing servers with minimal power or space overhead—a stark contrast to the WX 8200’s 230 W and dual-slot footprint. The T4 also has a higher pixel rate (101.8 vs 96.00 GPixel/s) for fill-rate-bound tasks.

There is no universal winner. The WX 8200 leads in compute and bandwidth, while the T4 leads in capacity and feature set. For a workstation focused on simulation or content creation with OpenCL pipelines, the AMD card is the data-backed pick. For a server handling large AI models or Vulkan-optimized rendering, the T4’s 16 GB and tensor cores are decisive. Both are end-of-life products, but their benchmark profiles remain relevant for legacy deployments.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69,870, while the NVIDIA Tesla T4 averages 66,733, giving AMD a 4.7% lead.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The WX 8200 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 13.9% (69,774 vs 61,276), which is the biggest delta in either direction.

Q: Does the Tesla T4 have more memory bandwidth than the WX 8200?

A: No. The WX 8200 offers 512.0 GB/s via HBM2, while the T4 provides 320.0 GB/s via GDDR6.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA Tesla T4 has dedicated hardware: 40 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores. The WX 8200 has none.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The WX 8200 draws 230 W with a dual-slot cooler and needs a 550 W PSU, while the T4 consumes 70 W in a single-slot design with no power connectors and a 250 W PSU suggestion.

Q: What is the Vulkan benchmark result for each card?

A: The Tesla T4 scores 72,190 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the WX 8200’s 69,076 by 4.3%.