Radeon 780M vs Pro WX 8200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
34.40
+88.2%

Pro WX 8200 outperforms 780M by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking151305
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.88no data
Power efficiency10.3083.89
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameVega 10Hawx Point
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year 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 cores3584768
Core clock speed1200 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz2700 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate336.0129.6
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22448
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 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 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. 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
+88.2%
Radeon 780M 18.28

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
+88.1%
Radeon 780M 7029

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 HD65−70
+85.7%
35
−85.7%
1440p30−35
+76.5%
17
−76.5%
4K24−27
+71.4%
14
−71.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p15.37no data
1440p33.30no data
4K41.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Elden Ring 37
+0%
37
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Elden Ring 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 32
+0%
32
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+0%
54
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
World of Tanks 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Elden Ring 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+0%
19
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+0%
32
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21
+0%
21
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 86% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 76% faster in 1440p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 71% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.40 18.28
Recency 13 August 2018 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 15 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has a 88.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 780M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 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 780M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation card while Radeon 780M is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

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 1629 votes

Rate Radeon 780M 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.