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

The Verdict

The data splits these two mobile GPUs almost perfectly down the middle, with each winning 5 of the 10 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M takes the compute and API-level tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M dominates in graphics throughput and 2D work. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in Metal or OpenCL, the RX 5500M is the clear choice, leading by 31.7% in Geekbench Metal and 24.6% in Geekbench OpenCL. For those who need stronger DirectX 11 performance, 2D acceleration, or general 3D rendering, the Pro 5500M wins decisively, particularly with a 36.1% advantage in Passmark G2D and a 13.1% lead in Passmark G3D. The RX 5500M also holds higher overall average benchmark scores at 13,356 versus 11,528, placing it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs compared to the Pro 5500M's 51st percentile. However, the Pro 5500M offers double the memory capacity, 8 GB versus 4 GB, which matters for larger workloads that exceed the RX 5500M's frame buffer.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: Navi 14 chip, RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Both contain 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores, and both expose the same API set: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The key architectural divergence lies in the compute configuration and clock behavior. The RX 5500M packs 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Pro 5500M increases the shading units to 1536 and TMUs to 96, keeping ROPs at 32. Despite having more execution resources, the Pro 5500M runs at lower clocks: a 1000 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost versus the RX 5500M's 1375 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. This explains why the RX 5500M achieves higher peak rates: 52.64 GPixel/s pixel fill, 144.8 GTexel/s texture fill, and 4.632 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Pro 5500M's 46.40 GPixel/s, 139.2 GTexel/s, and 4.454 TFLOPS. The RX 5500M also runs faster memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth against the Pro 5500M's 192.0 GB/s, though both use GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Both are end-of-life products with no power connector requirements, rated at 85 W TDP, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The RX 5500M belongs to the Radeon RX 5000 series with a Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) generation tag, while the Pro 5500M is categorized under Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 5500M's largest victory comes in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 50,359 against the Pro 5500M's 38,235, a 31.7% margin. Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern: 38,725 versus 31,088, a 24.6% lead. Geekbench Vulkan is much closer, with the RX 5500M edging ahead 35,693 to 35,134, just 1.6% higher. In older DirectX tests, the RX 5500M wins Passmark DirectX 10 by 8.3% (39 versus 36) and Passmark DirectX 9 by 4.2% (100 versus 96). The Pro 5500M counters in Passmark DirectX 11 with a 16.7% advantage (42 versus 35) and takes Passmark DirectX 12 narrowly at 29 versus 28, a 3.4% edge. The Pro 5500M's most dramatic wins are in Passmark G2D, where it scores 648 versus 414, a 36.1% lead, and Passmark GPU Compute, where it reaches 3,240 versus 2,316, a 28.5% margin. Passmark G3D also favors the Pro 5500M: 6,732 versus 5,848, a 13.1% difference. The average benchmark scores reflect these splits: the RX 5500M averages 13,356 across all tests, while the Pro 5500M averages 11,528, though the Pro 5500M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c at 11,479 (0.4% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at 11,627 (0.8% higher), while the RX 5500M sits near the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 13,321 (0.3% higher).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5500M | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M |

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

| Series | Radeon RX 5000 series | None |

| Generation | Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) | Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) |

| Base clock | 1375 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1645 MHz | 1450 MHz |

| Game clock | 1448 MHz | None |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1408 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 88 | 96 |

| Pixel rate | 52.64 GPixel/s | 46.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 144.8 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.632 TFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | None |

| Release date | 2019-10-06 | 2019-11-12 |

Shared specifications include the 7 nm process, TSMC foundry, Navi 14 chip, RDNA 1.0 architecture, 6,400 million transistors, 158 mm² die, 40.5M / mm² density, 128-bit bus, GDDR6 memory type, 32 ROPs, 85 W TDP, PCIe 4.0 x8, no power connectors, no RT or tensor cores, and identical API support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M. It delivers 4.632 TFLOPS FP32 and 9.265 TFLOPS FP16, compared to the Pro 5500M's 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.909 TFLOPS FP16. This translates to a 31.7% lead in Geekbench Metal and 24.6% in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Why does the Pro 5500M win Passmark G3D despite having lower clock speeds?

A: The Pro 5500M has more compute resources: 1536 shading units and 96 TMUs versus 1408 and 88 for the RX 5500M. In Passmark G3D, this configuration advantage results in a 6,732 score against 5,848, a 13.1% win.

Q: How much more memory does the Pro 5500M have?

A: The Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6, exactly double the RX 5500M's 4 GB. However, the RX 5500M's memory runs faster at 14 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps, giving it 224.0 GB/s bandwidth compared to 192.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU performs better in DirectX 11?

A: The Pro 5500M wins Passmark DirectX 11 by 16.7%, scoring 42 versus the RX 5500M's 35. The RX 5500M wins DirectX 10 by 8.3% and DirectX 9 by 4.2%, while DirectX 12 is nearly even with the Pro 5500M ahead 29 to 28.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RX 5500M's average score of 13,356 puts it 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321) and 0.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407). The Pro 5500M's average of 11,528 is 0.4% above the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11,479) and 2.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261).

Q: What is the difference in 2D performance?

A: The Pro 5500M wins Passmark G2D by a wide margin: 648 versus 414, a 36.1% advantage. This is the largest percentage difference in any of the ten head-to-head benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500M wins in compute-centric workloads. Its Geekbench Metal score of 50,359 and OpenCL score of 38,725 make it the stronger option for applications that leverage these APIs, such as general-purpose GPU computing and certain creative workflows. It also holds a slight edge in Vulkan at 35,693 versus 35,134, and wins the legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests. The higher boost clock of 1645 MHz and faster memory at 224.0 GB/s contribute to its peak throughput advantages in pixel rate (52.64 GPixel/s) and texture rate (144.8 GTexel/s), despite having fewer shading units.

The Pro 5500M wins in graphics-oriented and memory-heavy scenarios. Its 8 GB frame buffer doubles the RX 5500M's capacity, making it more suitable for workloads with large textures or data sets. The Passmark G3D result (6,732 versus 5,848) indicates stronger overall 3D rendering, and the GPU Compute score (3,240 versus 2,316) shows a 28.5% advantage in compute tests that favor its higher shading unit count. The 36.1% lead in G2D makes it the better choice for 2D acceleration tasks. Its DirectX 11 win (42 versus 35) and narrow DirectX 12 win (29 versus 28) suggest better compatibility with modern game APIs, even though the RX 5500M wins the overall average benchmark score by 15.9% (13,356 versus 11,528). The Pro 5500M's lower clocks (1000 MHz base, 1450 MHz boost) mean it achieves these wins through architectural efficiency rather than raw speed, and its nearest rival comparison includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 at 11,680 (1.3% higher), positioning it in a similar performance class.