AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 5600M and AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT are both RDNA 1.0 mobile parts, but they target different workloads and exhibit a clear performance hierarchy in the available data. The RX 5600M holds a decisive advantage across all recorded benchmarks, while the Pro 5500 XT offers a larger memory pool and a higher boost clock. The following analysis breaks down their head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the data-driven use cases for each.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance lead for the AMD Radeon RX 5600M across all three shared tests. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M scores 76,653 against the Pro 5500 XT’s 54,779, a delta of 39.9% in favor of the RX 5600M. This is the smallest margin between the two cards, yet it still represents a substantial gap in GPU compute performance under Apple’s Metal API.

The margin widens further in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 5600M posts 59,589 versus 41,772 for the Pro 5500 XT, resulting in a 42.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in the head-to-head set, indicating that the RX 5600M’s execution resources scale particularly well in OpenCL compute workloads. The Pro 5500 XT’s lower shader count and narrower memory bus appear to bottleneck its throughput in this API.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 5600M scores 48,843 against 39,601, a 23.3% lead. While still a clear win, this is the closest contest of the three tests. The Pro 5500 XT’s higher boost clock (1757 MHz versus 1265 MHz) may help it close some of the gap in Vulkan, which often stresses clock-sensitive rendering paths. However, the RX 5600M’s overall shader and texture hardware advantages prevent any real upset.

The aggregate picture is unambiguous: the RX 5600M wins all three head-to-head tests, with a win tally of 3 to 0. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 46,601, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. The Pro 5500 XT averages 45,384, sitting just one percentile lower at 84. Despite the per-test deltas of 23-43%, the overall average scores are closer (a 2.7% difference) because the RX 5600M’s additional benchmarks—specifically 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1320—weigh into its average without a direct counterpart for the Pro 5500 XT.

Looking at nearest rivals, the RX 5600M’s average score of 46,601 sits essentially even with the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, 0% delta) and just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702). It leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.2% (46,043) and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.4% (45,972). The Pro 5500 XT’s 45,384 average is 0.5% below the Intel Arc A730M (45,592) and 1.3% below the RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972), while leading the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile by 0.5% (45,152) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti by 1.3% (44,795). These rival deltas show both cards are competitive in their class, but the RX 5600M edges ahead in raw compute.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the RDNA 1.0 architecture fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but they are built on different chips with distinct configurations. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip, a larger die at 251 mm² containing 10,300 million transistors. The Pro 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip, which is substantially smaller at 158 mm² and packs 6,400 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical—41.0M per mm² for Navi 10 and 40.5M per mm² for Navi 14—confirming the same process technology.

The RX 5600M’s larger chip translates directly into more execution resources. It features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Pro 5500 XT is cut down significantly, with 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and just 32 ROPs. This 50% advantage in shading units and 33% advantage in TMUs for the RX 5600M explains its higher theoretical throughput: 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.398 TFLOPS for the Pro 5500 XT. The pixel rate also favors the RX 5600M at 80.96 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 182.2 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bandwidth. The RX 5600M carries 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 5500 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 but on a narrower 128-bit bus, resulting in 224.0 GB/s. The RX 5600M’s 28.6% bandwidth advantage is critical for high-resolution texturing, even though the Pro 5500 XT offers 2 GB more capacity. The Pro 5500 XT compensates with faster memory clocks: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600M, but the wider bus wins out.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Pro 5500 XT has a base clock of 1187 MHz and a boost clock of 1757 MHz, both significantly higher than the RX 5600M’s 1035 MHz base and 1265 MHz boost. The RX 5600M also lists a game clock of 1190 MHz, which the Pro 5500 XT lacks. Despite the Pro 5500 XT’s higher clocks, the RX 5600M’s shader count and memory bandwidth deliver superior real-world results, as the benchmark deltas demonstrate.

Power and interface differences are notable. The RX 5600M is rated at 150 W TDP, while the Pro 5500 XT draws 125 W, and the Pro 5500 XT lists a suggested PSU of 300 W. Both cards are integrated (IGP slot width) with no power connectors and no display outputs on the Pro 5500 XT specifically (the RX 5600M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent"). The bus interface also differs: the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, halving the available bandwidth to the host system. API support is identical—DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4—and neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the faster GPU in every measured scenario. Its 39.9% lead in Metal, 42.7% lead in OpenCL, and 23.3% lead in Vulkan are substantial, not marginal. The RX 5600M’s higher average benchmark score (46,601 versus 45,384) and better percentile ranking (85th versus 84th) reinforce this. Anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in a mobile form factor should choose the RX 5600M without hesitation.

The Pro 5500 XT’s case rests on specific attributes rather than benchmark victories. Its 8 GB memory capacity exceeds the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed 6 GB of frame buffer. Its higher boost clock (1757 MHz) and lower TDP (125 W) may appeal to thermally constrained designs. However, the Pro 5500 XT wins zero head-to-head tests and offers no benchmark evidence of superior performance. The 128-bit memory bus and 32 ROPs are hard limitations that clock speed cannot overcome.

For users comparing across the broader market, the RX 5600M sits at parity with the Intel Arc A530M and within 0.2% of the RX 6550M, while the Pro 5500 XT trades blows with the Arc A730M and RTX 5090 Mobile. The RX 5600M’s rival deltas are all positive or neutral, whereas the Pro 5500 XT shows both positive and negative deltas, indicating a less consistent competitive position. From a pure performance standpoint, the RX 5600M is the clear pick.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M has an average benchmark score of 46,601, compared to 45,384 for the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5600M in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 5600M scores 76,653 versus 54,779 for the Pro 5500 XT, a 39.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Pro 5500 XT have more memory?

A: Yes, the Pro 5500 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6, while the RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6. However, the RX 5600M has higher memory bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 5600M is rated at 150 W, while the Pro 5500 XT is rated at 125 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Pro 5500 XT has a boost clock of 1757 MHz, significantly higher than the RX 5600M’s 1265 MHz.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The RX 5600M’s Navi 10 chip has 10,300 million transistors, while the Pro 5500 XT’s Navi 14 chip has 6,400 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600M wins in every benchmark category where both cards are tested. Its 3-0 head-to-head record covers Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan APIs, making it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU compute, gaming on portable devices, and any application that leverages these cross-platform interfaces. The RX 5600M’s higher pixel rate (80.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (182.2 GTexel/s) also suggest better rasterization throughput, which is critical for traditional rendering workloads. Its 192-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a wider data pipeline, beneficial for high-resolution textures and large buffer operations.

The Pro 5500 XT’s wins are not in benchmarks but in specific hardware attributes. Its 8 GB memory capacity is 33% larger than the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, which is a decisive factor for workloads that require more than 6 GB of VRAM, such as certain machine learning inference or large 3D scene rendering. Its higher boost clock of 1757 MHz may yield better single-threaded or clock-sensitive performance in niche applications, though the data does not show this translating to benchmark wins. The Pro 5500 XT also draws 25 W less power (125 W versus 150 W), which could make it preferable in ultra-thin or passively cooled designs where thermal headroom is scarce. Finally, the Pro 5500 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the RX 5600M’s x16, is sufficient for most tasks and may be paired with a 300 W suggested PSU for simpler system integration.

In summary, the RX 5600M is the performance leader and the default choice for users who want maximum throughput. The Pro 5500 XT is a niche option for those who need the extra memory capacity or lower power draw, accepting a 23-43% performance penalty across all measured APIs.