Radeon 860M vs Pro WX 8200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with Radeon 860M, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
31.87
+175%

Pro WX 8200 outperforms 860M by a whopping 175% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking180431
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.29no data
Power efficiency10.0355.91
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025)
GPU code nameVega 10Strix Point
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)March 2025 (recently)
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.

no data

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 cores3584512
Core clock speed1200 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz3000 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million34,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate336.096.00
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs22432
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan1.1.1251.3

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.

Pro WX 8200 31.87
+175%
Radeon 860M 11.59

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 13046
+175%
Radeon 860M 4746

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 HD120−130
+173%
44
−173%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.33no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 37
+0%
37
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 30
+0%
30
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 24
+0%
24
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 43
+0%
43
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 51
+0%
51
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 23
+0%
23
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Baldur's Gate 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and Radeon 860M compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 173% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.87 11.59
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 15 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has a 175% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 860M, on the other hand, has a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 1433.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 860M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation card while Radeon 860M is a notebook one.

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 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200
AMD Radeon 860M
Radeon 860M

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.


4.1 27 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon 860M 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 Radeon 860M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.