AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon R9 M275X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data reveals a stark performance gulf, with the newer Pro 5500M dominating the older R9 M275X in every measured test. This analysis examines the scope of that advantage, the architectural shifts that explain it, and what the numbers imply for real-world usage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is limited to two shared tests, but the results are decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088, while the AMD Radeon R9 M275X manages only 11,200. This translates to a delta of 177.6% in favor of the Pro 5500M. The Vulkan test tells an even more lopsided story: the Pro 5500M posts 35,134 against the R9 M275X’s 9,964, a margin of 252.6%. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a generational leap in compute throughput.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Pro 5500M’s average benchmark score of 11,528 places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K20c, which sits just 0.4% behind with an average score of 11,479. This proximity suggests the Pro 5500M is performing at a level comparable to a professional-grade compute card from the Kepler era. On the other side, the R9 M275X’s average score of 10,582 places it in the 49th percentile, with its closest competitor being the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at a 0.4% higher score. While the percentile gap between the two cards seems small—51 versus 49—the actual score difference is 946 points, or roughly 8.9%, which is meaningful in real-world workloads.

The individual benchmark suite reveals additional strengths for the Pro 5500M. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,732 is substantial, and its Geekbench Metal score of 38,235 is notably high, indicating strong performance in Apple’s Metal API environment. The R9 M275X lacks these specific test scores, but its OpenCL and Vulkan numbers are consistently lower, suggesting it would struggle to match the Pro 5500M in any compute-heavy scenario. The data points to a clear pattern: the Pro 5500M is not just faster; it is faster by a margin that makes the R9 M275X effectively non-competitive in modern workloads.

Architecture Differences

The performance gap is rooted in fundamental architectural disparities. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture using the Navi 14 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This node allows for 6,400 million transistors packed into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The process node shrink alone—from 28 nm to 7 nm—explains a significant portion of the efficiency and performance gains.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Pro 5500M features 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R9 M275X has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Pro 5500M has 2.4 times the shading units and 2.4 times the texture units, which directly translates to higher pixel and texture fill rates. The Pro 5500M achieves a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s, while the R9 M275X manages only 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s, respectively. These are not subtle differences; the Pro 5500M is roughly three times faster in both fill rates.

Memory configuration further widens the gap. The Pro 5500M comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 72.00 GB/s. The effective memory speed difference is stark: 12 Gbps for the Pro 5500M versus 4.5 Gbps for the R9 M275X. For memory-intensive tasks like high-resolution textures or large compute buffers, this bandwidth advantage is critical. The Pro 5500M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 M275X is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, though the older card’s wider interface does not compensate for its slower memory.

Clock speeds also favor the Pro 5500M. Its base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 1450 MHz, whereas the R9 M275X runs at a base of 900 MHz and boosts to only 925 MHz. The higher boost clock, combined with the superior architecture, results in a floating-point throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS for the Pro 5500M versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M275X. The Pro 5500M also supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, offering 8.909 TFLOPS, a capability the R9 M275X lacks entirely. API support is another differentiator: the Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M275X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

Given the data, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X does not win in any measurable benchmark category. The head-to-head results show 2 wins for the Pro 5500M and 0 for the R9 M275X. However, context matters. The R9 M275X was released in early 2014 and is part of the “Gem System” generation, making it a product of its time. In 2014, a GPU with 640 shading units and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory was capable of handling contemporary games at moderate settings and resolutions. Its 49th percentile ranking suggests it was an average performer even in its era, but it would have been viable for 1080p gaming on less demanding titles.

The Pro 5500M, by contrast, is positioned for professional and creative workloads. Its high Metal score of 38,235 indicates strong performance in macOS applications, which is expected given its “Radeon Pro” branding and its inclusion in the 2019 MacBook Pro lineup. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is well-suited for video editing, 3D rendering, and machine learning inference tasks that require larger memory pools. Its Passmark GPU Compute score of 3,240 further reinforces its compute-oriented design. For users running OpenCL-heavy applications like Blender or DaVinci Resolve, the Pro 5500M’s 177.6% advantage over the R9 M275X would translate to dramatically reduced render times.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the R9 M275X is a legacy part that may still function in older laptops for basic 2D tasks or light gaming, while the Pro 5500M is a modern workhorse for content creation and professional applications. The R9 M275X’s Passmark G2D score is not listed, but its overall compute performance is so far behind that it cannot be recommended for any current workload. The Pro 5500M, with its 51st percentile ranking, is a mid-tier performer that competes with the NVIDIA GTX 1660 (which sits 1.3% higher in average score) and the AMD RX 7800 XT (which is 0.8% higher). These rival comparisons place the Pro 5500M in a respectable position among modern GPUs.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M in OpenCL compared to the R9 M275X?

A: The Pro 5500M scores 31,088 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R9 M275X scores 11,200. This is a 177.6% advantage for the Pro 5500M.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the Pro 5500M’s bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s for the R9 M275X.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Pro 5500M has a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter, compared to 12.2 million per square millimeter for the R9 M275X. This is due to the Pro 5500M’s 7 nm process versus the R9 M275X’s 28 nm process.

Q: Does the R9 M275X support FP16 compute?

A: No, the R9 M275X does not list FP16 performance. The Pro 5500M supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, offering 8.909 TFLOPS.

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

A: The Pro 5500M scores 35,134 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R9 M275X scores 9,964. This represents a 252.6% advantage for the Pro 5500M.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Pro 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11,528, while the R9 M275X has an average of 10,582. The Pro 5500M is about 8.9% higher overall.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior GPU in every measurable way. Its 177.6% lead in OpenCL and 252.6% lead in Vulkan leave no room for debate. For any user running modern compute, rendering, or creative applications, the Pro 5500M is the only viable choice between these two. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and RDNA 1.0 architecture provide a solid foundation for professional workloads. The 51st percentile ranking indicates it is a competent mid-range performer, sitting close to the NVIDIA GTX 1660 and AMD RX 7800 XT in average score.

The R9 M275X, while functional, is a relic of the GCN 1.0 era. Its 640 shading units, 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, and 1,184.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance place it firmly in the low-end category of its time. Its 49th percentile ranking means it was never a high performer, and its lack of FP16 support and older API versions limit its relevance today. For someone with an older laptop containing this GPU, the data suggests it should be reserved for legacy applications or tasks that do not require significant graphics acceleration.

The choice between these two is not about preference; it is about capability. The Pro 5500M is a modern, capable GPU that can handle contemporary tasks with ease. The R9 M275X is an outdated part that struggles to keep up with even basic modern workloads. If you have the option, the Pro 5500M is the clear recommendation. The only scenario where the R9 M275X might be acceptable is if you are working with software that specifically requires its older driver support or if you are maintaining a vintage system where performance is not a priority. For everyone else, the Pro 5500M’s data-driven dominance makes it the only logical choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip on a 7 nm process, while the R9 M275X uses the Venus chip on a 28 nm process. Transistor counts are 6,400 million versus 1,500 million, with die sizes of 158 mm² and 123 mm², respectively. The Pro 5500M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1450 MHz, compared to 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost for the R9 M275X.

Memory configurations are distinct: the Pro 5500M offers 8 GB of GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, while the R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5 at 4.5 Gbps effective. Bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s for the Pro 5500M versus 72.00 GB/s for the R9 M275X. Compute resources favor the Pro 5500M with 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, against 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the R9 M275X.

Pixel and texture rates are 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s for the Pro 5500M, versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M275X. FP32 performance is 4.454 TFLOPS for the Pro 5500M and 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M275X. The Pro 5500M also supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS, a feature absent from the R9 M275X. Power consumption is listed at 85 W for the Pro 5500M, while the R9 M275X has no TDP listed. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Pro 5500M and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M275X. API support differs, with the Pro 5500M offering DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M275X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.