Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs GeForce GTX 960

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960 with Radeon Pro WX 8200, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
15.80

Pro WX 8200 outperforms GTX 960 by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking342146
Place by popularity55not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.1024.97
Power efficiency9.0210.37
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGM206Vega 10
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date22 January 2015 (9 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 8200 has 174% better value for money than GTX 960.

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 cores10243584
Core clock speed1127 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1178 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt230 Watt
Texture fill rate75.39336.0
Floating-point processing power2.413 TFLOPS10.75 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs64224

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm267 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)400 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options+-

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 amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.24x mini-DisplayPort
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.1.125
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 960 15.80
Pro WX 8200 34.81
+120%

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.

GTX 960 6085
Pro WX 8200 13409
+120%

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 HD62
−110%
130−140
+110%
4K28
−114%
60−65
+114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.217.68
4K7.1116.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−108%
75−80
+108%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−116%
110−120
+116%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−119%
70−75
+119%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−109%
90−95
+109%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−118%
220−230
+118%
Hitman 3 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
−115%
170−180
+115%
Metro Exodus 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−109%
90−95
+109%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−116%
110−120
+116%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−113%
170−180
+113%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−108%
75−80
+108%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−116%
110−120
+116%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−119%
70−75
+119%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−109%
90−95
+109%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−118%
220−230
+118%
Hitman 3 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
−115%
170−180
+115%
Metro Exodus 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−109%
90−95
+109%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−116%
110−120
+116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 131
−114%
280−290
+114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−113%
170−180
+113%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−108%
75−80
+108%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−119%
70−75
+119%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−118%
220−230
+118%
Hitman 3 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
−115%
170−180
+115%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−116%
110−120
+116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
−114%
60−65
+114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−113%
170−180
+113%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−109%
90−95
+109%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−108%
50−55
+108%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−108%
27−30
+108%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
−117%
180−190
+117%
Hitman 3 18−20
−111%
40−45
+111%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−119%
70−75
+119%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−114%
60−65
+114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−107%
60−65
+107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−119%
210−220
+119%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−100%
30−33
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Hitman 3 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
−115%
170−180
+115%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−100%
30−33
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−114%
45−50
+114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%

This is how GTX 960 and Pro WX 8200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 110% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 114% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.80 34.81
Recency 22 January 2015 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 230 Watt

GTX 960 has 91.7% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 120.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation one.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960
AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 3812 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960 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.