AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs AMD Radeon Pro 575X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT and AMD Radeon Pro 575X are both end-of-life, integrated-class (IGP) GPUs aimed at Apple Mac systems, yet they represent two very different design philosophies and performance tiers. Benchmark results show the 5500 XT secures a clean sweep, winning all three head-to-head Geekbench tests, with its average benchmark score of 45384 sitting 16.1% above the 575X's 39116. This places the 5500 XT at the 84th percentile of all GPUs and among rivals like the Intel Arc A730M (45592, only 0.5% higher) and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972, 1.3% higher), while the 575X lands at the 82nd percentile, trading blows with the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38706, 1.1% lower) and the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39555, 1.1% higher). The data points to a clear generational leap, but the specifics of where and why each card wins—or loses—reveal a more nuanced story for different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT wins outright in every single benchmark category recorded, making the case for it as the superior all-rounder. Its most dominant victory comes in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 54779 against the 575X's 44655, a decisive 22.7% lead. This suggests that for Metal-accelerated applications—the primary API for macOS graphics and compute—the 5500 XT is substantially more capable, delivering a smoother experience in tasks that leverage Apple's low-level framework. The OpenCL result reinforces this trend, with the 5500 XT scoring 41772 versus 34773, a 20.1% advantage, indicating strong raw compute throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads like rendering or scientific simulations. Even in Vulkan, where the margin narrows to 4.4% (39601 vs 37919), the 5500 XT still takes the win, showing it is not solely optimized for Apple's native APIs but also handles cross-platform standards competently.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X, despite losing all three tests, cannot be dismissed entirely. Its narrow 4.4% deficit in Vulkan suggests that in this specific API, the older GCN 4.0 architecture remains competitive, potentially offering a more balanced performance profile for Vulkan-based titles or applications that rely on this API's unique features. The 575X's average score of 39116 puts it in the same performance bracket as its direct predecessor, the Radeon Pro 575 (39555, 1.1% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39568, 1.1% higher), meaning it holds its own against contemporary low-power mobile GPUs. However, the data shows no scenario where the 575X wins outright; its only "win" is being within striking distance in Vulkan, making it a fallback choice for users locked into the older 500X series platform who need modest Vulkan performance without a full upgrade.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by a fundamental architectural divide. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT is built on the Navi 14 chip using the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Radeon Pro 575X uses the Ellesmere chip with the older GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This node difference is stark: the 5500 XT packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², while the 575X uses 5,700 million transistors across a much larger 232 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 24.6M per mm². The smaller, denser chip on the 5500 XT is a direct result of the newer process, allowing for more efficient power delivery and higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds tell a compelling story. The 5500 XT has a base clock of 1187 MHz and a boost clock of 1757 MHz, while the 575X's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data, leaving its frequency profile unknown. Memory configurations also diverge significantly: the 5500 XT comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The 575X offers only 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), resulting in a slightly lower bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s. The 5500 XT compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory technology and a higher effective data rate, achieving superior bandwidth despite the width disadvantage. The 575X does have more shading units (2048 vs 1536) and TMUs (128 vs 96), but the 5500 XT's newer architecture and higher clocks allow it to surpass the older chip in raw throughput metrics like texture rate (168.7 GTexel/s vs 140.3 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (56.22 GPixel/s vs 35.07 GPixel/s).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Breaking down the three head-to-head results, the largest delta is in Geekbench Metal, where the 5500 XT's 54779 outpaces the 575X's 44655 by 22.7%. This is the single biggest performance gap and directly reflects the architectural efficiency of RDNA 1.0 over GCN 4.0 in Metal workloads. The 5500 XT's FP32 compute of 5.398 TFLOPS versus the 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS (a 20.2% raw compute advantage) aligns closely with this Metal margin, suggesting that the benchmark is heavily compute-bound and the 5500 XT's higher throughput translates almost linearly into performance. The FP16 figures further highlight the gap: the 5500 XT achieves 10.80 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling its FP32 rate, while the 575X is locked at 4.489 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it cannot accelerate half-precision workloads. For machine learning or image processing that relies on FP16, the 5500 XT has a massive theoretical advantage that is not even captured in the standard benchmark suite.

In OpenCL, the 5500 XT wins by 20.1% (41772 vs 34773), closely mirroring the Metal result and confirming that the performance lead is not API-specific but rather a fundamental compute advantage. The Vulkan test shows the smallest margin at 4.4% (39601 vs 37919), which is curious given the 5500 XT's higher raw specs. This could indicate that GCN 4.0 has more mature or optimized Vulkan drivers, or that the Vulkan test is less sensitive to the architectural differences, possibly being more memory-bandwidth-bound. The 575X's bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s is only 3.1% lower than the 5500 XT's 224.0 GB/s, which may explain why the Vulkan gap is so narrow—both cards are operating near their memory limits in this test. The data implies that for Vulkan-specific applications, the older card is not as obsolete as the Metal and OpenCL numbers suggest, making it a viable option for users prioritizing this cross-platform API.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is the unequivocal choice for anyone seeking maximum performance. It wins all three benchmarks, offers double the memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), and delivers higher bandwidth, pixel rate, and texture rate. Its 22.7% lead in Metal makes it the standard recommendation for macOS users running Metal-heavy applications like Final Cut Pro or Blender, where the GPU's compute power directly translates to faster render times. The 5500 XT's average score of 45384 places it in the same league as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (44795, 1.3% lower) and the Intel Arc A730M (45592, 0.5% higher), indicating it can handle demanding modern workloads despite its integrated form factor. Its FP16 capability at 10.80 TFLOPS is a forward-looking feature for AI-driven tasks, a category where the 575X cannot compete at all.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X, meanwhile, is only defensible in specific legacy scenarios. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory may be sufficient for older applications, and its 256-bit bus offers a wide memory path that some workloads may prefer, but the benchmark data shows it trailing by 20% or more in compute-heavy tests. Its Vulkan score of 37919, only 4.4% behind, suggests that Vulkan developers might not notice a significant difference, making it a cost-effective option for Vulkan-only environments. However, with a launch date of March 2019, nearly a year and a half before the August 2020 release of the 5500 XT, the 575X is older technology. Its nearest rival, the Radeon Pro 580X (38706, 1.1% lower), is essentially a peer, meaning the 575X is not even the best in its own generation. Users on the 500X series platform should consider the 5500 XT as a substantial upgrade, while those restricted to the older platform but needing Vulkan performance may find the 575X adequate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT has an average benchmark score of 45384, which is 16.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 575X's average of 39116.

Q: How much faster is the 5500 XT in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The 5500 XT scores 54779 in Geekbench Metal, while the 575X scores 44655, giving the 5500 XT a 22.7% advantage.

Q: Does the 575X have any advantage in memory bus width?

A: Yes, the 575X has a 256-bit memory bus, which is wider than the 5500 XT's 128-bit bus, but the 5500 XT's GDDR6 memory provides higher effective bandwidth (224.0 GB/s vs 217.0 GB/s).

Q: What are the FP16 compute capabilities of each card?

A: The 5500 XT achieves 10.80 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while the 575X is limited to 4.489 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the 5500 XT can handle half-precision workloads twice as fast as its FP32 rate, whereas the 575X cannot accelerate them at all.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The 5500 XT has a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², significantly higher than the 575X's 24.6M per mm², due to the 7 nm process vs the 14 nm process.

Q: In which benchmark is the performance gap the narrowest?

A: The narrowest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the 5500 XT leads by only 4.4% (39601 vs 37919), compared to 22.7% in Metal and 20.1% in OpenCL.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT | AMD Radeon Pro 575X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1187 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1757 MHz | null |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 96 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.22 GPixel/s | 35.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 168.7 GTexel/s | 140.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.398 TFLOPS | 4.489 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 125 W | 150 W |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2020-08-03 | 2019-03-17 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 45384 | 39116 |

| Geekbench Metal | 54779 | 44655 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 41772 | 34773 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 39601 | 37919 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 84 | 82 |