AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins it with a score of 9002 against the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's 8851. That is a 1.7% margin, a narrow but clear victory for the newer part. In terms of overall average benchmark score, the Pro 450 lands at 10804, while the R9 M265X sits at 8851, a gap of roughly 22% in favor of the Pro 450. The R9 M265X's average is pulled entirely from its single recorded OpenCL result; the Pro 450 has three recorded tests, including Geekbench Metal at 12893 and Geekbench Vulkan at 10518, both of which are substantially higher than its own OpenCL score. The database percentile ranking reflects this separation: the Pro 450 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M265X is at the 44th percentile. That five-point percentile difference indicates the Pro 450 lands in a stronger overall performance tier, even though the head-to-head delta is modest.

Looking at the nearest rival data for each card gives additional context. The Pro 450's average score of 10804 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10690), and 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10629). These are tight margins, meaning the Pro 450 is clustered with a group of mid-range parts where small score differences separate competitors. The R9 M265X, by contrast, has an average of 8851, which is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863), 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon 550X (8918), and 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743). The R9 M265X is therefore grouped with older or lower-tier parts, and its position in that cluster is less favorable than the Pro 450's position in its own cluster.

The direct OpenCL comparison is the only benchmark where both cards were tested under identical conditions, and the 1.7% delta is small enough that it could be considered within run-to-run variation, but the database records it as a win for the Pro 450. The broader benchmark suite, however, shows a much larger separation. The Pro 450's Metal score of 12893 is 43% higher than its OpenCL score, and its Vulkan score of 10518 is 17% higher. The R9 M265X has no Metal or Vulkan results recorded, so cross-API comparisons are not possible, but the Pro 450's multi-API strength is evident from its own numbers. The average benchmark score difference of 22% is the most meaningful single figure here, as it aggregates all recorded tests and gives a fuller picture of real-world performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's GCN architecture. The Radeon Pro 450 uses GCN 4.0 on a chip codenamed Baffin, while the Radeon R9 M265X uses GCN 1.0 on a chip codenamed Venus. This architectural gap is significant: GCN 4.0 is a much later revision with substantial improvements in efficiency and feature support. The process node tells a similar story. The Pro 450 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M265X uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The smaller node allows the Pro 450 to pack 3,000 million transistors into the same 123 mm² die size as the R9 M265X, which contains only 1,500 million transistors. That yields a transistor density of 24.4M per mm² for the Pro 450 versus 12.2M per mm² for the R9 M265X. The physical die size is identical at 123 mm², but the Pro 450 crams twice the transistor count into that space.

Core counts are identical: both have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The clock speeds differ, but the Pro 450's clock data is incomplete in the database, with no base or boost clock recorded. The R9 M265X has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz. Memory clocks, however, are recorded for both. The Pro 450 runs its GDDR5 memory at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective data rate, while the R9 M265X runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the higher memory clock gives the Pro 450 a bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s for the R9 M265X. That is a 27% bandwidth advantage for the Pro 450.

The architectural differences extend to compute rates. The Pro 450 achieves a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.00 GTexel/s, while the R9 M265X manages 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 1,024.0 GFLOPS for the Pro 450 versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M265X, a 28% advantage. The Pro 450 also records FP16 performance at 1,024.0 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the R9 M265X has no FP16 data recorded. API support differs as well: the Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface also differs: the Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the R9 M265X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro 450 is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the R9 M265X has no slot width or display output data recorded. The Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W, while the R9 M265X has no TDP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has an average benchmark score of 10804, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X has an average of 8851. That puts the Pro 450 roughly 22% ahead in aggregated performance.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the only direct head-to-head test?

A: The only direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro 450 scores 9002 against the R9 M265X's 8851. The Pro 450 wins by 1.7%.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the memory clocks differ. The Pro 450 runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective, yielding 81.28 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M265X runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these GPUs?

A: The Pro 450 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M265X uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both use a 123 mm² die, but the Pro 450 has 3,000 million transistors versus 1,500 million for the R9 M265X.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are the core configurations the same?

A: Yes, both have 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The differences come from clock speeds, memory bandwidth, and architecture efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in process node, foundry, transistor count, transistor density, memory clock, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, FP16 support, DirectX version, Vulkan version, bus interface, slot width, display outputs, and TDP. The Pro 450 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries; the R9 M265X uses 28 nm at TSMC. Transistor count is 3,000 million versus 1,500 million, with density at 24.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm². Memory clock is 1270 MHz versus 1000 MHz, with effective rates of 5.1 Gbps versus 4 Gbps. Bandwidth is 81.28 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 32.00 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,024.0 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS. FP16 is 1,024.0 GFLOPS on the Pro 450 with no data for the R9 M265X. DirectX support is 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan support is 1.3 versus 1.2.170. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro 450 is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent display outputs; the R9 M265X has no slot width or display output data. TDP is 35 W for the Pro 450, with none recorded for the R9 M265X. The R9 M265X has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz, while the Pro 450 has no base or boost clock recorded. The R9 M265X lists its predecessor as Solar System and successor as Polaris Mobile; the Pro 450 lists neither.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the AMD Radeon Pro 450 as the stronger GPU. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, holds a 22% advantage in average benchmark score, sits five percentile points higher in the overall GPU distribution, and offers superior specifications across memory bandwidth, compute rates, and API support. The architectural gap is decisive: GCN 4.0 on 14 nm versus GCN 1.0 on 28 nm is a generational leap, not an incremental one. The R9 M265X is an older part with identical core counts but lower clocks, lower bandwidth, and no recorded Metal or Vulkan results. For any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or modern API features, the Pro 450 is the better choice. The R9 M265X is not without merit; its 8851 OpenCL score is respectable for its era, and its nearest rival cluster includes parts like the RTX 3050 A Mobile and GTX 460 v2, where it holds a 1.2% advantage. But those are modest wins against older or lower-tier hardware. The Pro 450's nearest rivals include the Quadro K2200 and MX350, a higher performance class overall.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it beats the R9 M265X by 1.7%. In the broader benchmark set, it records a Metal score of 12893 and a Vulkan score of 10518, both well above its own OpenCL result and far above the R9 M265X's only recorded score. The Pro 450 also wins on memory bandwidth (81.28 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s), FP32 compute (1,024.0 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS), pixel rate (12.80 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s), and texture rate (32.00 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s). It supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, and it offers FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio. The R9 M265X's only advantages are its higher bus interface width (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8), its recorded clock speeds (575 MHz base, 625 MHz boost), and its lower transistor density, which is not a performance advantage but a reflection of its older manufacturing process. In practice, the Pro 450 is the better pick for compute-heavy tasks, modern API workloads, and any scenario where memory bandwidth matters. The R9 M265X is the pick only in legacy scenarios where its PCIe x16 interface and older driver ecosystem are relevant, though the database provides no benchmarks to quantify that advantage.