L20 vs Radeon Pro WX 8200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 and L20, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
L20 outperforms Pro WX 8200 by a minimal 3% 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 | 187 | 175 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 24.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.12 | 8.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) | 16 November 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3584 | 11776 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 336.0 | 927.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.75 TFLOPS | 59.35 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 128 |
| TMUs | 224 | 368 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 368 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 92 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 864.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.79 | 33.75 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 16 November 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 275 Watt |
Pro WX 8200 has 19.6% lower power consumption.
L20, on the other hand, has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro WX 8200 and L20.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
