AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon Pro 455 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 455 and AMD Radeon Pro 450 are two closely related mobile workstation GPUs from the same Baffin family, aimed at professional laptops. The database shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, with the Pro 455 taking every benchmark win. Both cards share identical memory configurations, power envelopes, and API support, but the Pro 455 separates itself through a more fully enabled execution engine. The data indicates that the Pro 455 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy professional workloads, while the Pro 450 remains a serviceable entry point for lighter tasks. The recorded benchmarks, drawn from Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan tests, provide a consistent picture of where each card stands.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 455 wins in every recorded benchmark category, making it the default pick for any workload that stresses the GPU. The largest advantage appears in Geekbench Metal, where the Pro 455 scores 23.4% higher than the Pro 450. Metal performance is critical for macOS-based creative applications, including video editing, 3D rendering, and compositing, so this gap translates directly into faster viewport interactions and shorter export times for professionals on Apple hardware.

The Pro 455 also leads in Vulkan, with a 16.4% advantage, which matters for cross-platform game engines and emerging compute workloads. Vulkan is increasingly used in professional visualization and simulation tools, so this edge reinforces the Pro 455 as the more future-proof option. In OpenCL, the Pro 455 is 14.8% ahead, a meaningful margin for generic GPU compute tasks like image processing, physics simulation, and machine learning inference on older frameworks.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 does not win any of the three head-to-head benchmarks. Its only advantage is indirect: it sits in a lower performance tier, which may align with a lower system cost when configured in a laptop. The data shows the Pro 450 averaging 10,804 across all benchmarks, placing it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 455 averages 12,831 and lands in the 52nd percentile. For users who only need light acceleration for UI rendering or occasional compute, the Pro 450 can suffice, but there is no workload category in the recorded data where it outperforms the Pro 455.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 455 than the Pro 450 in Metal?

A: The Pro 455 scores 15,916 in Geekbench Metal, while the Pro 450 scores 12,893. That is a 23.4% advantage for the Pro 455, the largest gap between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: Do these GPUs have different memory configurations?

A: No. Both cards ship with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing identical bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s. The memory clock is also the same at 1270 MHz, or 5.1 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card is better for OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The Pro 455. It scores 10,336 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9,002 for the Pro 450, a 14.8% lead. This translates to faster execution for compute kernels that rely on OpenCL.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the GCN 4.0 architecture on the Baffin chip, built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. They share the same transistor count of 3,000 million and the same die size of 123 mm².

Q: What is the power draw of these cards?

A: Both the AMD Radeon Pro 455 and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 have a TDP of 35 W, making them suitable for thin-and-light professional laptops. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. There is no difference in API capabilities between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 455 wins all three tests, with margins ranging from 14.8% to 23.4%. The largest delta appears in Geekbench Metal, where the Pro 455 posts 15,916 against the Pro 450's 12,893. This 23.4% gap is substantial for Metal-accelerated workloads, and it is the single biggest reason to choose the Pro 455 for professional creative work on macOS. The Pro 455's additional shading units and texture units scale well in Metal, which often rewards raw shader throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 455 scores 12,240, while the Pro 450 trails at 10,518. The 16.4% delta shows that the Pro 455's advantage persists across different compute and graphics APIs, not just Apple's Metal. Vulkan performance is relevant for game development, real-time rendering, and certain scientific visualization tools. The Pro 455's lead here suggests it can handle more complex scenes and higher draw call counts without dropping frames.

The smallest margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro 455 scores 10,336 versus 9,002 for the Pro 450, a 14.8% difference. OpenCL is an older compute standard but still sees use in legacy applications and some research software. Even with the smallest delta, the Pro 455 is clearly ahead, and the absolute scores indicate that neither card is a compute powerhouse by modern standards. The Pro 455's average benchmark score of 12,831 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, 0% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, -0.1% delta). The Pro 450's average of 10,804 puts it in company with the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, 0.4% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, -0.7% delta).

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 455 and Pro 450 share a great deal of silicon, but the Pro 455 is configured with more active execution units. The Pro 455 has 768 shading units, while the Pro 450 has 640, a difference of 128 shaders. This is the primary driver of the performance gap. Texture mapping units also differ: the Pro 455 has 48 TMUs, the Pro 450 has 40. Raster operation units are identical at 16 for both cards, which means pixel fill rate is not the differentiator.

The compute rates reflect these hardware differences. The Pro 455 delivers 1,313.3 GFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, while the Pro 450 delivers 1,024.0 GFLOPS in both precisions. That is a 28.3% raw compute advantage for the Pro 455, which aligns with the benchmark deltas. Pixel rate is 13.68 GPixel/s for the Pro 455 and 12.80 GPixel/s for the Pro 450. Texture rate is 41.04 GTexel/s for the Pro 455 and 32.00 GTexel/s for the Pro 450.

All other major specifications match. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, both are rated at 35 W TDP, and both connect via PCIe 3.0 x8. The power connector field is listed as "None" for the Pro 455 and blank for the Pro 450, but both are MXM modules designed to draw power from the laptop's mainboard. Both cards are marked as end-of-life and share the same release date of October 29, 2016.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Baffin chip produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 3,000 million, and the die size is the same at 123 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². There is no node advantage for either card, and no difference in foundry, chip, or architecture generation.

The architectural difference is purely in the enabled resources within the same chip. The Pro 455 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Pro 450 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, with 16 ROPs. Both cards have no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which means they rely entirely on traditional shader compute for rendering and acceleration. The FP16 performance matches FP32 at a 1:1 ratio for both, so neither card offers a half-precision boost for machine learning tasks.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The display outputs are marked as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host laptop's integrated display and ports rather than dedicated outputs on the card. The slot width is an MXM module for both, and neither requires external power connectors. The architecture is identical; the Pro 455 simply uses more of the Baffin die's available compute resources.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: choose the AMD Radeon Pro 455 whenever the budget allows, as it outperforms the Pro 450 in every recorded benchmark. The 23.4% lead in Metal, 16.4% in Vulkan, and 14.8% in OpenCL make the Pro 455 the clear choice for any professional workload that uses the GPU. The Pro 455's average score of 12,831 places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 450 sits at the 49th percentile with an average of 10,804.

For users on macOS, the Metal benchmark is the most relevant, and the Pro 455's advantage there is substantial. Video editors, 3D artists, and developers using Metal-accelerated frameworks will feel the difference in render times and viewport responsiveness. The Pro 455 also holds up better in Vulkan, which is useful for game development and cross-platform compute.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is not without merit. It shares the same memory bandwidth, API support, and 35 W power envelope as the Pro 455, making it a capable entry-level option for light GPU acceleration. Its 14.8% deficit in OpenCL is the smallest gap, so legacy compute workloads would see the least difference. However, with no benchmark wins and a lower percentile ranking, the Pro 450 should only be selected when the host system configuration forces that choice. The verdict is clear: the Pro 455 is the superior part, and the recorded data supports that without exception.