AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon Pro 5600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon 780M and AMD Radeon Pro 5600M represent two distinct approaches to integrated graphics, separated by architecture generation and intended use case. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Radeon Pro 5600M dominates in raw compute and graphics workloads, while the Radeon 780M offers superior architectural efficiency and modern feature support. The Radeon Pro 5600M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, yet the Radeon 780M holds a higher average benchmark score of 17,588 against the Pro 5600M’s 16,351, indicating that the 780M’s performance is more consistent across diverse test suites.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5600M is the unequivocal winner in compute-heavy and graphics-API benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 47,783 is 61.1% higher than the 780M’s 18,602, and its Vulkan score of 46,425 beats the 780M’s 33,683 by 27.4%. This makes the Pro 5600M the pick for applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan for rendering, simulation, or data processing. The data also shows a strong Metal score of 55,030, which is notable for macOS environments, though no direct comparison exists for the 780M in that test.

The Radeon 780M wins in overall portfolio positioning, despite losing the direct head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 17,588 places it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 5600M sits at the 59th percentile with an average of 16,351. The 780M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (deltaPct -0.3%) and AMD Radeon Pro 560 (deltaPct 0.2%), indicating it competes with modern discrete GPUs in aggregate performance. The Pro 5600M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (deltaPct -0.1%) and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (deltaPct -0.3%), showing it trades blows with high-end desktop parts from its era.

The 780M also wins on architectural modernity. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 5600M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. For ray tracing, the 780M includes 12 dedicated RT cores; the Pro 5600M has none. This makes the 780M the only option for DirectX 12 Ultimate features or hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations built on different nodes. The Radeon 780M uses the Phoenix chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 4 nm process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. The Pro 5600M’s transistor count and die size are not listed, but the process node difference alone suggests a significant efficiency gap.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The 780M packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, plus 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro 5600M has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no RT cores. This explains the raw performance advantage: the Pro 5600M has over three times the shading units and more than three times the TMUs. However, the 780M compensates with much higher clock speeds, boosting to 2900 MHz versus the Pro 5600M’s 1144 MHz.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 780M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system-dependent, meaning it borrows from the host CPU’s RAM. The Pro 5600M has 8 GB of dedicated HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a massive advantage for the Pro 5600M in memory-bound workloads, as dedicated high-bandwidth memory avoids the contention and latency of shared system memory.

The 780M produces higher theoretical throughput in some metrics. Its pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s versus the Pro 5600M’s 73.22 GPixel/s, and its FP32 performance is 8.909 TFLOPS versus 5.857 TFLOPS. The Pro 5600M counters with a texture rate of 183.0 GTexel/s versus the 780M’s 139.2 GTexel/s, and its FP16 performance of 11.71 TFLOPS exceeds the 780M’s 8.909 TFLOPS. Power draw differs notably: the 780M is rated at 15 W, while the Pro 5600M uses 50 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers two tests, both won by the Radeon Pro 5600M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5600M scores 47,783 against the 780M’s 18,602, a delta of -61.1% from the 780M’s perspective. This is the largest single margin in the comparison and reflects the Pro 5600M’s superior compute resources—2,560 shading units versus 768—combined with dedicated HBM2 memory. The OpenCL workload appears to scale heavily with core count and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the Pro 5600M.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows considerably. The Pro 5600M scores 46,425 against the 780M’s 33,683, a delta of -27.4%. The 780M’s higher boost clock of 2900 MHz and newer RDNA 3.0 architecture help close the gap in Vulkan, which tends to be more sensitive to clock speed and driver efficiency. Still, the Pro 5600M maintains a comfortable lead, likely due to its memory bandwidth advantage and greater raw shading throughput.

The 780M’s strongest showing comes from its Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683, which is 81% of the Pro 5600M’s 46,425. This suggests that in modern, well-optimized graphics APIs, the 780M can approach the Pro 5600M’s performance despite having a fraction of the shading units. The OpenCL result tells a different story: the 780M achieves only 39% of the Pro 5600M’s score, indicating that compute workloads remain heavily dependent on raw hardware resources.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The Radeon 780M has a higher average benchmark score of 17,588 compared to the Radeon Pro 5600M’s 16,351. The 780M also sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs versus the Pro 5600M’s 59th percentile.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 5600M win both head-to-head tests if its average score is lower?

A: The head-to-head tests are limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, where the Pro 5600M’s dedicated 8 GB HBM2 memory and 2,560 shading units provide a decisive advantage. The 780M’s higher average score comes from its performance across a broader range of benchmarks, including those that favor its newer architecture and higher clock speeds.

Q: Does the Radeon 780M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Radeon Pro 5600M has no RT cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M has dedicated 8 GB HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth on a 2048-bit bus. The Radeon 780M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system-dependent.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Radeon 780M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W. Both are IGP-class parts with no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU is more modern?

A: The Radeon 780M uses RDNA 3.0 on a 4 nm process and was released in 2024, with production status listed as Active. The Radeon Pro 5600M uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm process, was released in 2020, and is marked as End-of-life.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (780M) versus RDNA 1.0 (Pro 5600M)
• Process Node: 4 nm (780M) versus 7 nm (Pro 5600M)
• Transistors: 25,390 million (780M) versus not listed (Pro 5600M)
• Die Size: 178 mm² (780M) versus not listed (Pro 5600M)
• Base Clock: 800 MHz (780M) versus 822 MHz (Pro 5600M)
• Boost Clock: 2900 MHz (780M) versus 1144 MHz (Pro 5600M)
• Memory Size: System Shared (780M) versus 8 GB (Pro 5600M)
• Memory Type: System Shared (780M) versus HBM2 (Pro 5600M)
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared (780M) versus 2048 bit (Pro 5600M)
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent (780M) versus 394.2 GB/s (Pro 5600M)
• Shading Units: 768 (780M) versus 2,560 (Pro 5600M)
• TMUs: 48 (780M) versus 160 (Pro 5600M)
• ROPs: 32 (780M) versus 64 (Pro 5600M)
• RT Cores: 12 (780M) versus None (Pro 5600M)
• Pixel Rate: 92.80 GPixel/s (780M) versus 73.22 GPixel/s (Pro 5600M)
• Texture Rate: 139.2 GTexel/s (780M) versus 183.0 GTexel/s (Pro 5600M)
• FP32 Performance: 8.909 TFLOPS (780M) versus 5.857 TFLOPS (Pro 5600M)
• FP16 Performance: 8.909 TFLOPS 1:1 (780M) versus 11.71 TFLOPS 2:1 (Pro 5600M)
• TDP: 15 W (780M) versus 50 W (Pro 5600M)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 (780M) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (Pro 5600M)
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) (780M) versus 12 (12_1) (Pro 5600M)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 (780M) versus 1.3 (Pro 5600M)
• Release Date: 2024-01-30 (780M) versus 2020-06-14 (Pro 5600M)
• Production Status: Active (780M) versus End-of-life (Pro 5600M)

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on workload. For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior option, as evidenced by its 61.1% and 27.4% leads in those respective head-to-head tests. Its dedicated 8 GB HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth and 2,560 shading units make it a formidable compute engine, particularly for applications that can utilize its 11.71 TFLOPS FP16 throughput. The Pro 5600M’s 50 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface also indicate it was designed for more demanding portable workstation tasks.

The Radeon 780M is the better choice for modern graphics workloads and efficiency. Its RDNA 3.0 architecture, 4 nm process, and 12 RT cores bring DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support that the Pro 5600M cannot match. The 780M’s higher average benchmark score (17,588 vs. 16,351) and higher percentile rank (61st vs. 59th) suggest it performs more consistently across a wider range of tests. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for ultra-portable devices where power efficiency is paramount. The 780M’s FP32 performance of 8.909 TFLOPS also exceeds the Pro 5600M’s 5.857 TFLOPS, indicating better raw throughput in single-precision workloads despite fewer shading units.

The verdict is straightforward: the Radeon Pro 5600M wins on brute-force compute and memory bandwidth, while the Radeon 780M wins on architectural features, efficiency, and consistency. Neither is a universal winner, but the 780M’s modern feature set and higher aggregate score make it the more future-proof choice for general-purpose graphics, while the Pro 5600M remains relevant for legacy compute applications that favor its dedicated memory and massive shader count.