TITAN RTX vs Radeon Pro WX 8200

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with TITAN RTX, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018, $999
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
29.94
TITAN RTX
2018, $2,499
24 GB GDDR6, 280 Watt
45.27
+51.2%

TITAN RTX outperforms Pro 8200 by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking22194
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.775.73
Power efficiency10.0812.51
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU102
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date13 August 2018 (8 years ago)18 December 2018 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 $2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Pro WX 8200 has 18% better value for money than TITAN RTX.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores35844608
Core clock speed1200 MHz1350 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1770 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt280 Watt
Texture fill rate336.0509.8
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs224288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72
L1 Cache896 KB4.5 MB
L2 Cache4 MB6 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin2x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB24 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s672.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

Pro WX 8200 29.94
TITAN RTX 45.27
+51.2%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro WX 8200 12474
Samples: 110
TITAN RTX 18858
+51.2%
Samples: 284

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD100−110
−61%
161
+61%
1440p65−70
−56.9%
102
+56.9%
4K45−50
−62.2%
73
+62.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.99
+55.4%
15.52
−55.4%
1440p15.37
+59.4%
24.50
−59.4%
4K22.20
+54.2%
34.23
−54.2%
  • Pro WX 8200 has 55% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 has 59% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Pro WX 8200 has 54% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 264
+0%
264
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 353
+0%
353
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 198
+0%
198
+0%
Battlefield 5 163
+0%
163
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 342
+0%
342
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%
Far Cry 5 165
+0%
165
+0%
Fortnite 169
+0%
169
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 187
+0%
187
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 168
+0%
168
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 202
+0%
202
+0%
Valorant 348
+0%
348
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 118
+0%
118
+0%
Battlefield 5 164
+0%
164
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%
Dota 2 155
+0%
155
+0%
Far Cry 5 156
+0%
156
+0%
Fortnite 176
+0%
176
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 186
+0%
186
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 153
+0%
153
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 152
+0%
152
+0%
Metro Exodus 134
+0%
134
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 163
+0%
163
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 267
+0%
267
+0%
Valorant 336
+0%
336
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160
+0%
160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%
Dota 2 148
+0%
148
+0%
Far Cry 5 146
+0%
146
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 175
+0%
175
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 136
+0%
136
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 139
+0%
139
+0%
Valorant 236
+0%
236
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 134
+0%
134
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 157
+0%
157
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 114
+0%
114
+0%
Metro Exodus 85
+0%
85
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 307
+0%
307
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 134
+0%
134
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 157
+0%
157
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 134
+0%
134
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 103
+0%
103
+0%
Valorant 300
+0%
300
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 97
+0%
97
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Dota 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Far Cry 5 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 114
+0%
114
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 96
+0%
96
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 74
+0%
74
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and TITAN RTX compete in popular games:

  • TITAN RTX is 61% faster in 1080p
  • TITAN RTX is 57% faster in 1440p
  • TITAN RTX is 62% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.94 45.27
Recency 13 August 2018 18 December 2018
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 24 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 280 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has 22% lower power consumption.

TITAN RTX, on the other hand, has a 51% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 17% more advanced lithography process.

The TITAN RTX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 8200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation graphics card while TITAN RTX is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 29 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 881 votes

Rate TITAN RTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro WX 8200 or TITAN RTX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.