Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Radeon Pro WX 8200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.79

Pro WX 8200 outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 618% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking644150
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.8225.06
Power efficiency9.4410.32
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameLexaVega 10
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 8200 has 556% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.

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 cores5123584
Core clock speed925 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt230 Watt
Texture fill rate39.01336.0
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS10.75 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs32224

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 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.125

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

PRO WX 2100 4.79
Pro WX 8200 34.39
+618%

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 2100 1841
Pro WX 8200 13224
+618%

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−608%
85−90
+608%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−600%
70−75
+600%
Elden Ring 12−14
−608%
85−90
+608%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−614%
100−105
+614%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−608%
85−90
+608%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−600%
70−75
+600%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−600%
140−150
+600%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−567%
100−105
+567%
Valorant 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−614%
100−105
+614%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−608%
85−90
+608%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−600%
70−75
+600%
Dota 2 14−16
−567%
100−105
+567%
Elden Ring 12−14
−608%
85−90
+608%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−608%
170−180
+608%
Fortnite 27−30
−614%
200−210
+614%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−600%
140−150
+600%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−567%
100−105
+567%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−607%
290−300
+607%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−567%
100−105
+567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−588%
110−120
+588%
Valorant 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%
World of Tanks 75−80
−596%
550−600
+596%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−614%
100−105
+614%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−608%
85−90
+608%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−600%
70−75
+600%
Dota 2 14−16
−567%
100−105
+567%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−608%
170−180
+608%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−600%
140−150
+600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−607%
290−300
+607%
Valorant 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
Elden Ring 5−6
−600%
35−40
+600%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−588%
220−230
+588%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
World of Tanks 30−35
−606%
240−250
+606%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−614%
50−55
+614%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−567%
60−65
+567%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−600%
70−75
+600%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
Valorant 12−14
−592%
90−95
+592%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−606%
120−130
+606%
Elden Ring 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−588%
110−120
+588%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−614%
100−105
+614%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−588%
110−120
+588%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
Dota 2 16−18
−606%
120−130
+606%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−600%
35−40
+600%
Fortnite 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
Valorant 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.79 34.39
Recency 4 June 2017 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 230 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has 557.1% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 618% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200

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.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 27 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.