AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA GB10 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GB10 is the dominant part in this pairing. It wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks and sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 sits at the 90th percentile. For any workload captured by OpenCL or Vulkan, the GB10 is the clear choice, often by a margin exceeding 66%. The WX 8200, an end-of-life product from 2018, retains relevance only in scenarios that specifically favor its legacy API support or its higher memory bandwidth, but the benchmark scores do not support a general recommendation for it. The GB10 is the pick for anyone needing raw compute throughput, modern PCIe connectivity, and a low power envelope. The WX 8200 should only be considered by users with legacy software requirements that mandate DirectX 12 or OpenGL 4.6 support, as the GB10 lists no API support for those interfaces.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The NVIDIA GB10 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 382 mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a much larger die of 495 mm² and a stated transistor count of 12,500 million. The GB10's transistor density is not recorded, while the WX 8200 lists a density of 25.3M per mm².

Core configurations differ sharply. The GB10 packs 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). It also includes 48 ray tracing cores and 384 tensor cores. The WX 8200 offers 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but has no ray tracing or tensor cores listed. This difference alone explains the GB10's massive lead in compute-heavy tasks.

Memory subsystems are also divergent. The GB10 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s. Despite the WX 8200's higher raw bandwidth, the GB10's raw compute power overwhelms it in the recorded benchmarks. Clock speeds favor the GB10 as well, with a base of 1665 MHz and boost of 2418 MHz, versus the WX 8200's 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. The GB10's FP32 throughput is 29.71 TFLOPS, nearly three times the WX 8200's 10.75 TFLOPS. The WX 8200 does offer FP16 at 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GB10 lists FP16 at 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1), so the GB10 still wins there.

Power and physical design differ as well. The GB10 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, a 140 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The WX 8200 is a dual-slot card requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, with a 230 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The GB10 connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GB10's dimensions are 150 mm in length and 51 mm in height, whereas the WX 8200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall.

Where Each One Wins

The GB10 wins decisively on raw compute. Its OpenCL score of 120137 is 72.2% higher than the WX 8200's 69774. In Vulkan, the GB10 scores 114648 versus 69076, a 66% advantage. These results indicate that the GB10 is the superior part for general-purpose compute, machine learning inference (given its tensor cores), and any workload that leverages modern APIs.

The WX 8200 has no benchmark victories in the database. However, it holds advantages in specific architectural features that the GB10 lacks entirely. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the GB10 lists "N/A" for all three APIs. This means the WX 8200 could be the only viable option for legacy applications that require these graphics APIs. Additionally, the WX 8200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus the GB10's single HDMI, making it the better choice for multi-display configurations. The WX 8200's higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s) could also theoretically benefit memory-bound tasks, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect this advantage in practice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 has an average benchmark score of 117393, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 averages 69870. The GB10 sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the WX 8200's 90th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GB10 in OpenCL?

A: The GB10 scores 120137 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 72.2% higher than the WX 8200's 69774.

Q: Does the AMD card support any APIs that the NVIDIA card does not?

A: Yes. The WX 8200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GB10 lists "N/A" for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

Q: What are the memory sizes and types?

A: The GB10 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, while the WX 8200 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Which card requires more power connectors?

A: The WX 8200 requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector. The GB10 is an IGP with no power connectors and a lower TDP of 140 W versus 230 W.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The GB10 was released on 2025-10-14, while the WX 8200 was released on 2018-08-12. The WX 8200 is listed as end-of-life, while the GB10 is active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the NVIDIA GB10. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GB10 scores 120137 against the WX 8200's 69774, yielding a delta of 72.2%. This is a massive margin, reflecting the GB10's nearly triple FP32 throughput (29.71 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS) and its 6144 shading units versus 3584.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GB10 scores 114648 versus 69076, a 66% advantage. Notably, the WX 8200 also has a Metal benchmark score of 70759, but the GB10 has no Metal result recorded, so no comparison is possible there. The absence of a Metal score for the GB10, combined with its "N/A" API status, suggests the WX 8200 retains a niche for Apple-centric or legacy graphics workloads.

Contextualizing the GB10's performance against its nearest rivals reinforces its strength. Its average score of 117393 is 0.3% above the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117088), 1.3% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118976), 2.6% above the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114395), and 3% above the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113944). This places the GB10 in a competitive tier with modern professional GPUs, despite its IGP form factor.

The WX 8200's nearest rivals show a different picture. Its average of 69870 is 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69986), 0.4% below the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70140), 1.3% above the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000), and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70829). The WX 8200 is clustered with older and mid-range parts, all within roughly 1.5% of each other, indicating that it is not a performance outlier in either direction. The GB10's average score is roughly 68% higher than the WX 8200's, a gap that dwarfs any rivalry deltas within each card's respective peer group.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GB20B (NVIDIA) versus Vega 10 (AMD)
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 versus GCN 5.0
• Generation: Server Blackwell (Bxx) versus Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200)
• Process Node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Die Size: 382 mm² versus 495 mm²
• Transistors: unknown versus 12,500 million
• Transistor Density: not listed versus 25.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1665 MHz versus 1200 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2418 MHz versus 1500 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 128 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Type: LPDDR5X versus HBM2
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 2048 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 273.2 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 6144 versus 3584
• TMUs: 384 versus 224
• ROPs: 48 versus 64
• RT Cores: 48 versus not listed
• Tensor Cores: 384 versus not listed
• Pixel Rate: 116.1 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 928.5 GTexel/s versus 336.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 29.71 TFLOPS versus 10.75 TFLOPS
• FP16: 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 140 W versus 230 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 (12_1)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.3
• Length: 150 mm versus 267 mm
• Height: 51 mm versus 111 mm
• Production Status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release Date: 2025-10-14 versus 2018-08-12
• Predecessor: Server Hopper versus Radeon Pro GCN
• Successor: Server Rubin versus Radeon Pro Vega
• Launch MSRP: 3,999 USD versus 999 USD