T600 vs Radeon Pro WX 8200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 and T600, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro WX 8200
2018
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
34.40
+104%

Pro WX 8200 outperforms T600 by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking150327
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation25.54no data
Power efficiency10.3129.07
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU117
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)6 May 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores3584640
Core clock speed1200 MHz735 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1335 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate336.053.40
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS1.709 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22440

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 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s160.0 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.2
CUDA-7.5

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 8200 34.40
+104%
T600 16.86

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 13224
+104%
T600 6481

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
+88.7%
53
−88.7%
1440p50−55
+92.3%
26
−92.3%
4K40−45
+90.5%
21
−90.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.99no data
1440p19.98no data
4K24.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 80
+0%
80
+0%
Far Cry 5 96
+0%
96
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 59
+0%
59
+0%
Metro Exodus 10
+0%
10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
World of Tanks 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 111
+0%
111
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
World of Tanks 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+0%
32
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+0%
25
+0%
Metro Exodus 8
+0%
8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+0%
25
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and T600 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 89% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 92% faster in 1440p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 90% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.40 16.86
Recency 13 August 2018 6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 40 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has a 104% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 475% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the T600 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 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200
NVIDIA T600
T600

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
4.2 683 votes

Rate T600 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.