Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Radeon Pro WX 8200
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 8200
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon Pro WX 8200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $110 versus $350 for the Radeon Pro WX 8200, it costs 69% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 220.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+220.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($350) | ✅More affordable ($110) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon Pro WX 8200 and GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Radeon Pro WX 8200
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1200 MHz to 1500 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 230W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,615 points. Launch price was $999.
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 29 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1530 MHz to 1785 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 125W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,692 points. Launch price was $229.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 12,615 and the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER reaches 12,692 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on GCN 5.0 while the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 3,584 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs 1,408 (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER). Raw compute: 10.75 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs 5.027 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER). Boost clocks: 1500 MHz vs 1785 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,615 | 12,692 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 3584+155% | 1408 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.75 TFLOPS+114% | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1500 MHz | 1785 MHz+19% |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 224+155% | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 1.4 MB+59% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+167% | 1.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER has 6 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) — the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+33% | 6 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 192-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+167% | 1.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 4.0 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER). Decoder: UVD 7.0 vs NVDEC (Turing). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 4.0 | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | UVD 7.0 | NVDEC (Turing) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 draws 230W versus the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER's 125W — a 59.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs 450W (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 230W | 125W-46% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 450W-10% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 75-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 54.8 | 101.5+85% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 launched at $999 MSRP and currently averages $350, while the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER launched at $229 and now averages $110. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER costs 68.6% less ($240 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 36.0 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) vs 115.4 (GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER) — the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER offers 220.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 8200 | GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $999 | $229-77% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $350 | $110-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 36.0 | 115.4+221% |
| Codename | Vega 10 | TU116 |
| Release | August 13 2018 | October 29 2019 |
| Ranking | #210 | #207 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro WX 8200 and GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
