AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly clear generational split. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins the majority of head-to-head tests, taking 6 out of 9, but the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M holds decisive victories in specific areas that reveal distinct design philosophies. For raw modern graphics API performance, the RX 6500M is the definitive choice, leading by 19.9% in Geekbench Vulkan and 19.4% in Geekbench OpenCL. However, the Pro 5500M is not obsolete; its 68.3% lead in Passmark G2D and 21.4% lead in GPU compute suggest it was engineered for professional workflows that prioritize 2D responsiveness and compute throughput over gaming-centric rendering. The data indicates the RX 6500M is for users targeting DirectX 11/12 gaming performance, while the Pro 5500M remains relevant for legacy DirectX 9 applications and compute tasks. The overall average benchmark score favors the Pro 5500M (11,528 vs 10,362), placing it in the 51st percentile versus the RX 6500M's 48th percentile, which counters the narrative of a simple generational sweep.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs embody different stages of AMD's RDNA evolution. The Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The RX 6500M uses the Navi 24 chip on RDNA 2.0, built on a 6 nm process with 5,400 million transistors on a smaller 107 mm² die. This node shrink results in a significantly higher transistor density: 50.5M / mm² for the RX 6500M versus 40.5M / mm² for the Pro 5500M. The RX 6500M compensates for fewer total transistors with higher clock speeds, running a 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost compared to the Pro 5500M's 1000 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost. The architectural leap to RDNA 2.0 also brings dedicated hardware features absent from the older chip: the RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5500M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 API support, but the RX 6500M's newer feature set is a defining difference in long-term compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance (FP32)?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has a slight edge in theoretical FP32 throughput at 4.915 TFLOPS versus the Pro 5500M's 4.454 TFLOPS. However, in the Passmark GPU Compute benchmark, the Pro 5500M actually wins by 21.4% (3,240 vs 2,669), suggesting real-world compute workloads favor the older card despite the theoretical spec disadvantage.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Pro 5500M offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 6500M has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5500M's memory operates at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), whereas the RX 6500M runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus limits its total bandwidth.

Q: Which card is better for DirectX 11 gaming?

A: The RX 6500M is overwhelmingly better, winning the Passmark DirectX 11 test with a 40% margin (70 vs 42). This is consistent with its RDNA 2.0 architecture and higher boost clock of 2400 MHz versus the Pro 5500M's 1450 MHz.

Q: Is the Pro 5500M better at any graphics API?

A: Yes, the Pro 5500M wins the Passmark DirectX 9 test by 4.3% (96 vs 92). This indicates that for older DirectX 9 titles or applications, the Pro 5500M has a slight compatibility or optimization advantage, despite being a generation behind.

Q: What about 2D performance?

A: The Pro 5500M dominates in this area, scoring 648 in Passmark G2D versus the RX 6500M's 385, a massive 68.3% difference. This suggests the Pro 5500M is better suited for desktop, productivity, and 2D rendering tasks where raw 3D power is less relevant.

Q: Which card has a higher overall benchmark score?

A: The Pro 5500M has a higher average benchmark score of 11,528 compared to the RX 6500M's 10,362. This places the Pro 5500M in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6500M sits in the 48th percentile, indicating the Pro 5500M is slightly better positioned overall in the database's aggregated metrics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | AMD Radeon RX 6500M |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 6 nm |

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

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1450 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 2191 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 96 | 64 |

| ROPS | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 76.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 153.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.454 TFLOPS | 4.915 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 50 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Slot Width | N/A | IGP |

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2022-01-03 |

| Predecessor | None | Polaris Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 6500M's wins are concentrated in modern 3D workloads. The largest margin comes in Passmark DirectX 11, where the RX 6500M scores 70 versus the Pro 5500M's 42, a 40% advantage. This is followed by a 30.8% lead in Passmark DirectX 10 (52 vs 36) and a 14.7% lead in DirectX 12 (34 vs 29). In Geekbench, the RX 6500M shows strong API scaling, leading Vulkan by 19.9% (43,837 vs 35,134) and OpenCL by 19.4% (38,586 vs 31,088). The Passmark G3D result also favors the RX 6500M, with a 10.6% lead (7,531 vs 6,732). These results align with the RX 6500M's higher boost clock and newer architecture, which clearly accelerates DirectX 10/11/12 workloads.

The Pro 5500M's wins are fewer but notable for their magnitude. Its 68.3% lead in Passmark G2D (648 vs 385) is the single largest margin in the entire comparison, suggesting a fundamentally different optimization for 2D workloads. The 21.4% lead in Passmark GPU Compute (3,240 vs 2,669) is also significant, indicating that the Pro 5500M's higher shading unit count (1,536 vs 1,024) and wider memory bus (128-bit vs 64-bit) provide an advantage in compute-heavy tasks. The smallest Pro 5500M win is in DirectX 9, where it leads by 4.3% (96 vs 92), a narrow margin that shows the RX 6500M is not far behind in legacy API performance.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M is the clear winner for gaming and modern graphics APIs. Its victories in DirectX 10, 11, and 12, combined with the Geekbench Vulkan and OpenCL leads, make it the superior choice for current game titles and applications that leverage these APIs. The 40% DirectX 11 margin is particularly compelling for PC gamers, as DirectX 11 remains a widely used API. The higher pixel rate (76.80 GPixel/s vs 46.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (153.6 GTexel/s vs 139.2 GTexel/s) further support its 3D rendering advantage. The 50 W TDP also makes it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light laptops, despite its higher clock speeds.

The Pro 5500M wins where the workload is less about raw 3D polygon pushing and more about 2D interface rendering or compute throughput. The 68.3% G2D advantage makes it a better fit for professional productivity applications where UI responsiveness is critical. The 21.4% compute lead suggests it handles OpenCL-based tasks more efficiently, which could benefit content creation or scientific workloads. Its 8 GB memory capacity, double that of the RX 6500M, also provides more headroom for large datasets or multi-tasking, even if the bandwidth is lower. The DirectX 9 win, though small, indicates the Pro 5500M retains an edge for very old software. Ultimately, the data shows a card that is more balanced for professional, compute-oriented use versus a card that is specialized for modern gaming performance.