AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, which wins both shared benchmark tests against the AMD Radeon R9 M375. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Pro 5500M scores 31,088 points, while the R9 M375 manages 10,457 points, resulting in a 197.3% advantage for the newer part. The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Pro 5500M reaches 35,134 points against 9,682 points for the R9 M375, a 262.9% lead.

These are not marginal differences. The Pro 5500M more than triples the R9 M375's Vulkan output and nearly triples its OpenCL output. When placed against the broader field, the Pro 5500M holds an average benchmark score of 11,528 across all recorded tests, which places it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c at 11,479 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at 11,627 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 at 11,680 (1.3% ahead). The R9 M375, by contrast, has an average score of 10,070 across its two recorded tests, sitting at the 48th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M at 10,043 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959 (1.1% behind).

The Pro 5500M's additional benchmark results, which have no corresponding R9 M375 entries, further illustrate its capability. In PassMark G3D, it scores 6,732; in PassMark GPU Compute, it scores 3,240. Its PassMark DirectX 9 score is 96, DirectX 10 is 36, DirectX 11 is 42, and DirectX 12 is 29. The 2D graphics score sits at 648. These figures, combined with the Geekbench results, produce an average benchmark score that is roughly 14% higher than the R9 M375's average, despite the older card having far fewer recorded data points.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro 5500M wins in every shared benchmark category, so the use-case split is heavily lopsided. In compute-oriented workloads using OpenCL, the Pro 5500M's 31,088 score versus 10,457 for the R9 M375 indicates that tasks such as GPU-accelerated rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation will see a massive performance uplift on the newer architecture. The Vulkan result, 35,134 versus 9,682, points to a similar advantage in modern graphics APIs, which matters for games and applications that leverage low-level rendering.

The R9 M375 has no recorded wins in any category. Its only available data points are the two Geekbench results, and both fall far short of the Pro 5500M. However, the R9 M375 does occupy a different market position: it is a mobile discrete GPU from 2015, designed for thin-and-light laptops where power and thermal constraints dominate. The Pro 5500M, released in late 2019, is also a mobile part, but it targets professional Mac systems with higher performance expectations. For users constrained to the R9 M375's era of hardware, the card remains functional for basic GPU acceleration, but the data provides no scenario where it outperforms the Pro 5500M.

The Pro 5500M's PassMark DirectX 9 score of 96 versus its DirectX 11 score of 42 suggests that older DirectX 9 workloads are relatively stronger than newer API workloads on that card, but no comparison is possible with the R9 M375, which lacks PassMark entries entirely. Similarly, the Pro 5500M's 2D score of 648 indicates solid desktop composition performance, but again, there is no R9 M375 data for direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the generational leap: the Pro 5500M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per mm². The Pro 5500M achieves roughly 3.3 times the transistor density of the older chip.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Pro 5500M comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective speed of 12 Gbps. The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus width, but bandwidth drops to 28.80 GB/s with an effective speed of 1800 Mbps. That is a 6.7-fold bandwidth advantage for the Pro 5500M, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and large data sets.

Compute resources also differ substantially. The Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel fill rate for the Pro 5500M is 46.40 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the R9 M375, and texture fill rate is 139.2 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the Pro 5500M reaches 4.454 TFLOPS in FP32, while the R9 M375 manages 1,299.2 GFLOPS. The Pro 5500M also supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature entirely absent from the R9 M375's specifications.

Clock speeds are closer than the other specs might suggest. The Pro 5500M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1450 MHz. The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. Both cards share the same base clock, but the Pro 5500M boosts 42.9% higher. Power consumption is listed only for the Pro 5500M at 85 W; the R9 M375's TDP is not recorded in the database. The Pro 5500M has no power connectors, its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, and it uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support also differs. The Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed. The Pro 5500M's generation is described as Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile), while the R9 M375 belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. The R9 M375 lists a predecessor, Solar System, and a successor, Polaris Mobile; the Pro 5500M has no recorded predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11,528 across ten recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 has an average of 10,070 across two recorded tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Pro 5500M scores 35,134 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 262.9% higher than the R9 M375's 9,682 in the same test.

Q: Does the R9 M375 win any benchmark category?

A: No. The two head-to-head benchmark entries, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, both list the Pro 5500M as the winner. The R9 M375 has no recorded wins.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, while the R9 M375 has 640 shading units, a 2.4-fold difference.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The Pro 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | AMD Radeon R9 M375 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Boost Clock | 1450 MHz | 1015 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 96 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 16.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 40.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.454 TFLOPS | 1,299.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 85 W | Not listed |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Solar System |

| Successor | Not listed | Polaris Mobile |

Shared specifications include the manufacturer (AMD), the foundry (TSMC), the base clock (1000 MHz), the memory bus width (128 bit), OpenGL support (4.6), and production status (end-of-life). Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear choice for any workload represented in the database. Its 197.3% lead in OpenCL and 262.9% lead in Vulkan are the defining numbers in this comparison. The Pro 5500M also brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, all of which are far beyond the R9 M375's capabilities. Its 51st percentile ranking places it in the middle of the overall GPU distribution, while the R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile, but the direct comparison is far more lopsided than those percentile figures suggest.

Users who need modern API support, high-bandwidth memory, and competitive compute performance should pick the Pro 5500M without hesitation. The R9 M375, with its 2 GB of DDR3 memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, is only suitable for legacy systems where the workload is minimal and the Pro 5500M is not an option. The R9 M375's only advantages are its smaller die size and lower transistor count, which are irrelevant to performance. The data does not support any scenario where the R9 M375 is the preferable GPU for a task that both cards can handle.