Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs HD Graphics 4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 4200 with Radeon Pro WX 8200, including specs and performance data.
Pro 8200 outperforms HD Graphics 4200 by a whopping 3236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1178 | 210 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.07 |
| Power efficiency | 17.35 | 10.07 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 (2013) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT2 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 September 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 160 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 336.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.272 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 type | System Shared | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.125 |
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 HD | 8
−3150%
| 260−270
+3150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.84 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−3233%
|
1000−1050
+3233%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 13
−2977%
|
400−450
+2977%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−3114%
|
450−500
+3114%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−3233%
|
1000−1050
+3233%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−3114%
|
450−500
+3114%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−3233%
|
1000−1050
+3233%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−3100%
|
160−170
+3100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2900%
|
300−310
+2900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3114%
|
450−500
+3114%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−3100%
|
160−170
+3100%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
This is how HD Graphics 4200 and Pro WX 8200 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 8200 is 3150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.90 | 30.02 |
| Recency | 2 September 2013 | 13 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 230 Watt |
HD Graphics 4200 has 5650% lower power consumption.
Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 3235.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4200 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 4200 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
