AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 and AMD Radeon RX 550X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 4.0 architecture, yet they target different segments: the Pro 450 is an MXM-module workstation part from 2016, while the RX 550X is a dual-slot consumer Polaris refresh from 2018. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the RX 550X winning both head-to-head tests, but the overall average scores are remarkably close, with the Pro 450 at 10,804 and the RX 550X at 10,481. Both cards sit at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, placing them in the mid-range of the performance distribution, though their individual strengths and weaknesses differ in ways that matter for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 550X wins both available comparisons. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 550X scores 9,662 against the Pro 450's 9,002, a delta of -6.8% from the Pro 450's perspective, meaning the RX 550X is roughly 7% faster. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the RX 550X posting 11,299 versus the Pro 450's 10,518, again a -6.9% delta. These are consistent margins, suggesting the RX 550X holds a modest but reliable advantage across different compute APIs.

However, the picture becomes more nuanced when looking at the full benchmark set. The Pro 450 has an additional Geekbench Metal score of 12,893, which is its highest individual result and significantly above either of its other scores. The RX 550X has no Metal benchmark listed, so this advantage cannot be directly compared, but it indicates the Pro 450 is particularly well-tuned for Apple's Metal API, likely reflecting its intended use in Mac systems. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the Pro 450 averages 10,804 across its three tests, while the RX 550X averages 10,481 across its two tests—the Pro 450 is actually 3% higher on average, despite losing both direct comparisons.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The Pro 450's average score of 10,804 places it 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690). The RX 550X's average of 10,481 puts it 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400), 1% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362). Both cards cluster tightly with their rivals, indicating that neither has a decisive performance edge over its immediate competition.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 4.0 architecture and are fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but they use different chips. The Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip, while the RX 550X uses the Lexa chip. This is a critical distinction: Baffin is a larger, more fully-featured die, measuring 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The Lexa chip in the RX 550X is smaller at 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors, resulting in a lower density of 21.4 million per mm².

The chip differences translate directly into compute resources. The Pro 450 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The RX 550X has fewer of each: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. This means the Pro 450 has 25% more shading units and TMUs, which should theoretically give it higher compute throughput per clock. However, clock speeds tell the opposite story. The RX 550X has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz, while the Pro 450 has no listed base or boost clocks—only its memory clock is specified at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Without clock speeds for the Pro 450, the raw compute comparison must rely on the listed fill rates and FP32 figures.

The specifications confirm the RX 550X's clock advantage. The Pro 450 has a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.00 GTexel/s, while the RX 550X achieves 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s, respectively. In FP32 compute, the RX 550X delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus the Pro 450's 1,024.0 GFLOPS—an 18% advantage. Both cards offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the same relative difference applies. The RX 550X's higher clocks fully compensate for its fewer cores, resulting in superior throughput metrics across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 550X wins in raw compute performance. Its higher FP32 throughput (1,211.4 GFLOPS vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS) and faster pixel/texture rates make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, as evidenced by its wins in both head-to-head tests. The 6.8-6.9% margins in those tests are consistent with its fill rate advantages. For general-purpose GPU compute, gaming, or any application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 550X is the clear performer.

The Pro 450, despite losing the direct comparisons, has its own advantages. Its 12,893 Metal score is 23% higher than its OpenCL score and 18% higher than its Vulkan score, suggesting it is heavily optimized for Apple's Metal API. This makes it the better choice for macOS-specific applications that use Metal, such as professional creative software or Metal-accelerated rendering. The Pro 450 also has a higher average benchmark score (10,804 vs 10,481) thanks to that Metal result, so in a mixed-API workload where Metal is available, it could come out ahead.

The memory configuration also favors the Pro 450 in one respect: while the RX 550X has 4 GB of GDDR5 versus the Pro 450's 2 GB, both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 550X has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. The Pro 450's smaller memory capacity limits it in large datasets, but its MXM module form factor makes it suitable for portable devices where space is constrained, whereas the RX 550X's dual-slot design with a 145 mm length and 5.7-inch footprint is meant for more conventional chassis.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip (123 mm², 3,000 million transistors, 24.4M/mm² density), while the RX 550X uses Lexa (103 mm², 2,200 million transistors, 21.4M/mm²). The Pro 450 has no listed base or boost clocks, while the RX 550X has a 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost. Memory speeds differ: the Pro 450 runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus the RX 550X's 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 2 GB on the Pro 450 versus 4 GB on the RX 550X, though both use GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the RX 550X at 96.00 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s.

Compute resources differ: the Pro 450 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the RX 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s for the Pro 450 versus 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550X; texture rate is 32.00 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 1,024.0 GFLOPS on the Pro 450 and 1,211.4 GFLOPS on the RX 550X. Power draw differs substantially: the Pro 450 is rated at 35 W TDP, while the RX 550X is rated at 50 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Pro 450 uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors listed, while the RX 550X is dual-slot with no power connectors and explicit display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) versus the Pro 450's "Portable Device Dependent" outputs. Release dates are over two years apart: the Pro 450 launched on 2016-10-29, the RX 550X on 2018-12-15. The RX 550X lists a predecessor (Polaris) and successor (Vega), while the Pro 450 lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,662 versus the AMD Radeon Pro 450's 9,002, a -6.8% delta from the Pro 450's perspective.

Q: Does the Pro 450 have any advantage over the RX 550X?

A: Yes, the Pro 450 has a significantly higher Geekbench Metal score of 12,893, which is its best result and contributes to a higher average benchmark score (10,804 vs 10,481) despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of compute resources?

A: The Pro 450 has more shading units (640 vs 512) and TMUs (40 vs 32), but the RX 550X has higher clocks (1183 MHz boost vs no listed clocks for the Pro 450) and achieves higher FP32 performance (1,211.4 GFLOPS vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS).

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The RX 550X has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 450 has 2 GB at 81.28 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 550X's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is rated at 35 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon RX 550X is rated at 50 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How do their average scores compare to nearby rivals?

A: The Pro 450's average of 10,804 is 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX350; the RX 550X's average of 10,481 is 0.8% above the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and 1% below the AMD Radeon R9 M275X.