AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT across every shared benchmark. In the two tests where both GPUs have comparable measurements, the RX 7600M XT dominates by a wide margin, reflecting the generational gap between the two architectures.

Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600M XT scores 74,869, while the Radeon Pro 450 manages only 9,002. That is a delta of 731.7%, meaning the newer card delivers more than eight times the compute throughput in this workload. This is not a close contest; it is a categorical shift in performance class. OpenCL is a strong indicator of general-purpose compute and raw shader output, and the RX 7600M XT's RDNA 3.0 architecture with 2,048 shading units simply overwhelms the Pro 450's 640 GCN 4.0 shaders.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows somewhat but remains enormous. The RX 7600M XT posts 27,793, against 10,518 for the Pro 450, a delta of 164.2%. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that stresses driver efficiency and hardware scheduling; even here, the RX 7600M XT is 2.6 times faster. The Pro 450's older GCN design and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface likely contribute to its lower throughput in this API.

The database also shows the RX 7600M XT has an average benchmark score of 12,710 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tight: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 is only 0.5% behind, the AMD Radeon Pro 455 is 0.9% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 is 0.9% behind. The RX 7600M XT sits in a crowded mid-pack, trading blows with decade-old desktop parts. Meanwhile, the Radeon Pro 450's average score is 10,804, at the 49th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, is 0.4% ahead, while the GeForce MX350 is 0.7% behind. The Pro 450 is also closely matched with the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which sits 1.7% below it. In raw head-to-head terms, the RX 7600M XT wins 2 of 2 shared tests, with no wins for the Pro 450.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT scores 74,869 versus 9,002 for the AMD Radeon Pro 450, a 731.7% advantage for the RX 7600M XT.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7600M XT scores 27,793, while the Pro 450 scores 10,518, giving the RX 7600M XT a 164.2% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RX 7600M XT has an average benchmark score of 12,710, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro 450 has an average score of 10,804, at the 49th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The RX 7600M XT uses 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the Pro 450 uses 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Radeon Pro 450 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the RX 7600M XT wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Pro 450 has no wins in the shared test suite.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 7600M XT offers 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Pro 450 provides 81.28 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different eras of AMD's mobile graphics roadmap. The RX 7600M XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Navi 33 chip, and is part of the Radeon RX 7000 series under the "Hotpink Bonefish" codename. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors packed into a 204 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro 450, by contrast, uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, produced on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node. It holds just 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The density gap alone, roughly 2.7 times, explains much of the performance difference.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The RX 7600M XT features 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 32 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the Pro 450, which has no dedicated RT hardware. The Pro 450 offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel throughput tells the story: the RX 7600M XT reaches 158.0 GPixel/s, while the Pro 450 manages only 12.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided, at 316.0 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the RX 7600M XT delivers 20.23 TFLOPS, compared to 1,024.0 GFLOPS (or 1.024 TFLOPS) for the Pro 450. The RX 7600M XT also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, reaching 40.45 TFLOPS, while the Pro 450 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, staying at 1,024.0 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture reinforces the gap. The RX 7600M XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), producing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The Pro 450 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), delivering just 81.28 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus. Clock speeds are also telling: the RX 7600M XT has a base clock of 1280 MHz, a game clock of 2023 MHz, and a boost clock of 2469 MHz. The Pro 450 has no recorded base, game, or boost clocks in the database, but its memory clock is far lower. The RX 7600M XT runs at a 120 W TDP and is classified as an IGP with no power connectors, while the Pro 450 runs at 35 W and uses an MXM Module form factor.

The bus interface differs as well: the RX 7600M XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This halves the available bandwidth ceiling for the older card. API support also shows the generational divide. The RX 7600M XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer card also has a production status of "Active," while the Pro 450 is marked "End-of-life." The RX 7600M XT was released on 2023-01-03, and the Pro 450 on 2016-10-29.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT is the superior performer in every measured category. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile. The Pro 450, by contrast, is an older, end-of-life part that was never designed to compete with modern RDNA 3.0 silicon.

Who should pick the RX 7600M XT? Anyone who needs raw compute throughput, modern API support, or ray tracing capability. The 731.7% lead in OpenCL and 164.2% lead in Vulkan make it the obvious choice for GPU-accelerated workloads, content creation, or gaming on a mobile platform. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also provide far more headroom for modern textures and large datasets compared to the Pro 450's 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer.

Who should pick the Radeon Pro 450? The only justification from the recorded data is power efficiency. At 35 W TDP versus 120 W, the Pro 450 draws far less power, which could matter in a thin-and-light laptop where battery life is prioritized over performance. It also uses an MXM Module form factor, which may be the only option in certain legacy systems. But even here, the Pro 450's performance is so far behind that any workload beyond basic 2D or light 3D tasks will struggle. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and GTX 560 Ti, both of which are also old or low-end parts. The Pro 450 is simply outclassed in every meaningful benchmark.

For a user choosing between these two, the RX 7600M XT is the clear recommendation unless the system's power budget is extremely tight. The data shows no scenario where the Pro 450's lower power draw compensates for its massive performance deficit. The RX 7600M XT also benefits from a more modern process node, a denser transistor layout, and a wider feature set, including ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. The Pro 450, with its GCN 4.0 architecture and 14 nm process, is a relic of an earlier mobile computing era.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT and the AMD Radeon Pro 450:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus GCN 4.0
• Process Node: 6 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 13,300 million versus 3,000 million
• Die Size: 204 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 65.2M / mm² versus 24.4M / mm²
• Memory Size: 8 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5
• Memory Clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2048 versus 640
• Texture Mapping Units: 128 versus 40
• Raster Operation Pipelines: 64 versus 16
• Ray Tracing Cores: 32 versus none
• Pixel Rate: 158.0 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 316.0 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 20.23 TFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 40.45 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 120 W versus 35 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Production Status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release Date: 2023-01-03 versus 2016-10-29