AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark records show a clear victory for the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 in every direct head-to-head comparison. Across the two shared tests in the database, the Pro W5500 wins 2 to 0. These are not close contests. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro W5500 scores 45,615 against the Radeon 780M's 18,602. That is a 59.2% advantage for the Pro W5500, meaning the discrete workstation card delivers roughly two and a half times the raw compute performance in this API. The delta is stark: the 780M trails by 59.2% in this test.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still decisive margin. The Pro W5500 scores 42,021, while the 780M manages 33,683. The Pro W5500 leads by 19.8% here. While the OpenCL result suggests a massive compute gap, the Vulkan result indicates that the integrated GPU is comparatively more competitive in graphics-oriented workloads. Still, the Pro W5500 wins both.

Looking at the broader database averages, the two cards sit closer than the head-to-head tests suggest. The 780M posts an average benchmark score of 17,588, while the Pro W5500 averages 15,679. That puts the 780M ahead by roughly 12% in the overall aggregate. The explanation lies in the fact that the Pro W5500's benchmark suite includes several older DirectX tests where it scores very low, such as 47 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 39 in Passmark DirectX 12, which drag down its average. The 780M, by contrast, only has three recorded benchmarks, all of them modern and all of them strong enough to keep its average high.

The percentile rankings reflect this mixed picture. The 780M sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro W5500 sits at the 58th. Both are mid-pack performers, but the 780M edges ahead in overall standing. The nearest rivals for each card reinforce the different positioning. The 780M is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.4% behind). The Pro W5500 is similarly close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (0.8% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (1.1% behind). In other words, the 780M competes with modern mainstream GPUs, while the Pro W5500 trades blows with older high-end cards.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins decisively in compute-heavy and graphics-heavy workloads as evidenced by its two head-to-head victories. Its 45,615 OpenCL score is not just better than the 780M; it is in a different performance class. That makes the Pro W5500 the clear choice for tasks that rely heavily on OpenCL compute, such as certain rendering, simulation, or scientific workloads. Its 42,021 Vulkan score also leads, which points to strong performance in Vulkan-based games and applications. The Pro W5500's 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth gives it a structural advantage in any workload that needs to move large datasets quickly, since the 780M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP versus the Pro W5500's 125 W is a massive difference. The 780M needs no power connectors and is an IGP, meaning it occupies no slot and draws power from the motherboard. The Pro W5500 is a single-slot card requiring one 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W power supply. For compact systems, laptops, or small form factor builds, the 780M is the only viable option of the two. The 780M also leads in pixel rate with 92.80 GPixel/s versus 59.36 GPixel/s for the Pro W5500, which suggests the integrated part may have an edge in certain fill-rate-bound scenarios. Furthermore, the 780M's architecture is newer, built on RDNA 3.0 at 4 nm, versus RDNA 1.0 at 7 nm for the Pro W5500.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The Radeon 780M uses RDNA 3.0, built on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the Phoenix chip. The Radeon Pro W5500 uses RDNA 1.0, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with the Navi 14 chip. This generational gap explains several key differences. The 780M packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The Pro W5500 has only 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, for a density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The 780M's density is over three times higher, a direct result of the newer process node.

Shader configuration also differs sharply. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Pro W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Pro W5500 has nearly double the shading units and TMUs, which explains its higher texture rate of 163.2 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s for the 780M. However, the 780M's higher clock speeds compensate in some areas. The 780M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Pro W5500 boosts to only 1855 MHz. That clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, gives the 780M a higher FP32 throughput of 8.909 TFLOPS versus 5.224 TFLOPS for the Pro W5500. The RDNA 3.0 part also delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (8.909 TFLOPS), while the RDNA 1.0 part uses a 2:1 ratio (10.45 TFLOPS), meaning the Pro W5500 actually has higher peak FP16 throughput.

The 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Pro W5500 has none. This is a major architectural divergence. The 780M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro W5500 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Memory architecture is fundamentally different: the 780M uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro W5500's memory clock is listed as 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 averages 15,679. The 780M leads by about 12% in the overall aggregate.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Pro W5500 scores 45,615 versus 18,602 for the 780M, giving the Pro W5500 a 59.2% lead. The 780M trails by that same 59.2% margin.

Q: Does the Radeon 780M support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores. The Radeon Pro W5500 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each card?

A: The Radeon 780M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Radeon Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Radeon 780M has a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Pro W5500's 59.36 GPixel/s.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The 780M has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors as an IGP. The Pro W5500 has a TDP of 125 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested power supply of 300 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision based on use case. For raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the unequivocal winner. Its 59.2% lead in OpenCL and 19.8% lead in Vulkan are decisive. Anyone running workloads that depend on those APIs should choose the Pro W5500 without hesitation. The dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth further cements its position for data-intensive tasks. The Pro W5500 also has nearly double the shading units (1,408 versus 768) and a higher texture rate (163.2 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s), making it the stronger choice for traditional rasterization workloads that scale with shader count.

However, the Radeon 780M wins on efficiency and modern features. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Pro W5500's 125 W, and it needs no power connectors. It also has a higher pixel rate (92.80 GPixel/s versus 59.36 GPixel/s), higher FP32 throughput (8.909 TFLOPS versus 5.224 TFLOPS), and includes 12 ray tracing cores that the Pro W5500 lacks. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Pro W5500's DirectX 12 (12_1) makes it more future-proof for gaming. The 780M's higher percentile ranking (61st versus 58th) and higher average benchmark score (17,588 versus 15,679) also speak to its overall competitiveness in modern workloads.

The production status tells a similar story: the 780M is Active, while the Pro W5500 is End-of-life. The 780M's release date of January 2024 is nearly four years after the Pro W5500's February 2020 debut. For new systems, the 780M is the forward-looking choice. For existing systems that need a discrete workstation card with proven OpenCL and Vulkan performance, the Pro W5500 remains a capable option, though its age shows in its lower average score and lack of ray tracing support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 780M | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |

| Chip | Phoenix | Navi 14 |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 48 | 88 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 92.80 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.909 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2020-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 399 USD |

| Length | Not listed | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |