UHD Graphics 617 vs Radeon Pro WX 8200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with UHD Graphics 617, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018, $999
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
30.02
+1364%

Pro 8200 outperforms Graphics 617 by a whopping 1364% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking210920
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.08no data
Power efficiency10.0910.53
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega 10Amber Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (7 years ago)7 November 2018 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

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 cores3584192
Core clock speed1200 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate336.025.20
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS0.4032 TFLOPS
ROPs643
TMUs22424
L1 Cache896 KBno data
L2 Cache4 MBno data

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 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.3

Synthetic benchmarks

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 30.02
+1364%
UHD Graphics 617 2.05

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 12614
+1363%
Samples: 101
UHD Graphics 617 862

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 HD210−220
+1300%
15
−1300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.76no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 14
+0%
14
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and UHD Graphics 617 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 1300% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.02 2.05
Recency 13 August 2018 7 November 2018
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 15 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has a 1364.4% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 617, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 1433.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 617 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 617 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
Intel UHD Graphics 617
UHD Graphics 617

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.


4.2 29 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 79 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 617 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 UHD Graphics 617, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.