AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs AMD Radeon Pro 560X Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 560X than the AMD Radeon Pro 555 in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Pro 560X records an average benchmark score of 15,082, while the Pro 555 scores 13,407. That is a 12.5% advantage for the newer part, and the gap is driven mostly by the Vulkan and Metal results.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 is the OpenCL winner. It scores 11,682 versus the Pro 560X's 9,663, a 17.3% lead. This is the only benchmark in the head-to-head where the older card comes out ahead.

Q: What is the biggest single-benchmark margin between these two cards?

A: The largest gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro 560X scores 16,819 against the Pro 555's 12,303. That is a 36.7% difference, the widest margin recorded in the comparison.

Q: Do these two GPUs share the same silicon?

A: Yes. Both use the Polaris 21 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors and a 123 mm² die size. The transistor density is identical at 24.4M per mm².

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Pro 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 555 has 2 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but with 81.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) versus 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Pro 560X has 1,024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units. The Pro 555 has 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. Both have 16 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same Polaris 21 die, which is a 14 nm part fabricated by GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 3,000 million, and the die size matches at 123 mm². The architecture is GCN 4.0 for both, and they share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 on both, and both are integrated into the portable device as an IGP with no power connectors.

The real architectural difference is in the enabled execution resources. The Pro 560X activates 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Pro 555 activates fewer: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and still 16 ROPs. That means the Pro 560X has one-third more shader and texture throughput hardware, which directly explains its higher theoretical rates. The pixel rate is 16.06 GPixel/s on the Pro 560X versus 13.60 GPixel/s on the Pro 555. The texture rate is 64.26 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystem also differs. The Pro 560X runs GDDR5 at 1470 MHz with an effective data rate of 5.9 Gbps, yielding 94.08 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. The Pro 555 runs GDDR5 at 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) and delivers 81.60 GB/s on the same 128-bit bus. The Pro 560X also carries twice the memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB.

The FP32 compute output reflects these differences. The Pro 560X reaches 2.056 TFLOPS, while the Pro 555 delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS. Both maintain a 1:1 ratio for FP16, meaning there is no separate half-rate path. The TDP is identical at 75 W for both, which is notable given the Pro 560X's higher throughput and memory bandwidth.

The release timeline shows the Pro 555 came first in mid-2017, and the Pro 560X followed about a year later in mid-2018. Both are now marked end-of-life. The generation labels in the database place them in the 500 Series and 500X Series respectively, but the underlying silicon is the same.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced choice. If the workload favors Metal or Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X is the stronger option. Its Metal score of 18,763 beats the Pro 555's 16,236 by 15.6%, and its Vulkan score of 16,819 beats 12,303 by 36.7%. For modern graphics APIs, the Pro 560X is decisively ahead.

However, the Pro 555 wins the OpenCL test outright. It scores 11,682 versus 9,663, a 17.3% margin. That is not a small difference, and it suggests that OpenCL compute tasks may behave differently on the older driver or the smaller memory footprint. If a user's primary API is OpenCL, the Pro 555 is the better choice based on the recorded measurements.

The average benchmark score favors the Pro 560X: 15,082 versus 13,407. The Pro 560X also sits at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 555 is at the 54th. In terms of peer comparison, the Pro 560X lands close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon 680M (1.2% behind). The Pro 555 sits near the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (0.4% ahead).

For most general graphics and gaming-style loads, the Pro 560X is the superior part, especially given its 4 GB frame buffer and higher bandwidth. For OpenCL-specific compute, the Pro 555 has a measurable edge. The choice ultimately depends on which API the target applications use, but the Pro 560X wins two of three head-to-head benchmarks and posts the higher average.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several fields, all of which are recorded in the database:

• Memory capacity: Pro 560X has 4 GB, Pro 555 has 2 GB.
• Memory clock: Pro 560X runs at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective), Pro 555 runs at 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: Pro 560X delivers 94.08 GB/s, Pro 555 delivers 81.60 GB/s.
• Shading units: Pro 560X has 1,024, Pro 555 has 768.
• Texture mapping units: Pro 560X has 64, Pro 555 has 48.
• Pixel rate: Pro 560X is 16.06 GPixel/s, Pro 555 is 13.60 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Pro 560X is 64.26 GTexel/s, Pro 555 is 40.80 GTexel/s.
• FP32 compute: Pro 560X is 2.056 TFLOPS, Pro 555 is 1,305.6 GFLOPS.
• FP16 compute: Pro 560X is 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1), Pro 555 is 1,305.6 GFLOPS (1:1).
• Release date: Pro 560X is 2018-07-15, Pro 555 is 2017-06-04.

The following fields are identical and therefore not points of comparison: process node (14 nm), foundry (GlobalFoundries), transistor count (3,000 million), die size (123 mm²), transistor density (24.4M / mm²), ROPs (16), TDP (75 W), slot width (IGP), power connectors (none), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), display outputs (portable device dependent), and the full API list (DirectX 12 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show three tests, and the Pro 560X wins two of them.

In Geekbench Metal, the Pro 560X scores 18,763 against the Pro 555's 16,236. That is a 15.6% lead. This is the strongest Metal result for the Pro 560X, and it aligns with the card's higher shader count and memory bandwidth. Metal is the primary graphics API on Apple platforms, so this win matters for most real-world rendering tasks on a Mac.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the result flips. The Pro 555 scores 11,682, beating the Pro 560X's 9,663 by 17.3%. This is anomalous given the Pro 560X's superior hardware specifications. The cause is not visible in the data, but the margin is large enough that it cannot be dismissed as noise. OpenCL compute may be sensitive to driver maturity or specific memory allocation patterns, and the Pro 555 appears to have an advantage in this particular test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 560X reasserts dominance. It scores 16,819 versus 12,303, a 36.7% margin. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it shows that the Pro 560X scales well with a modern low-level graphics API. The gap is more than twice the Metal margin, which suggests that Vulkan workloads particularly benefit from the extra shading units and texture units.

The overall win count is 2 for the Pro 560X and 1 for the Pro 555. The average benchmark score reflects that split: 15,082 for the Pro 560X versus 13,407 for the Pro 555.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X is the winner for Metal and Vulkan workloads. Its Metal score is 15.6% higher, and its Vulkan score is 36.7% higher. These are the two most relevant APIs for modern macOS applications, games, and creative tools. The 4 GB memory capacity also gives it more headroom for larger textures and higher-resolution frame buffers, which is useful in graphical workloads that exceed 2 GB.

The Pro 560X also wins on theoretical throughput. Its FP32 rate of 2.056 TFLOPS is 57.5% higher than the Pro 555's 1,305.6 GFLOPS. Its texture rate is 64.26 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 16.06 GPixel/s versus 13.60 GPixel/s. For any workload that is compute-bound or texture-bound, the Pro 560X has a clear hardware advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins specifically in OpenCL. Its score of 11,682 beats the Pro 560X's 9,663 by 17.3%. That is the only benchmark in the head-to-head where the Pro 555 leads, but it is a substantial one. For OpenCL compute tasks, whether they are scientific simulations, image processing pipelines, or other general-purpose GPU work, the Pro 555 is the better performer according to the recorded data.

The Pro 555 also has a lower memory clock and half the capacity, which might make it a more constrained choice for large datasets, but the OpenCL result suggests that its compute path is more efficient in that specific API. The Pro 555's average benchmark score of 13,407 places it in the 54th percentile, close to the AMD Radeon RX 5500M and the AMD FirePro M6100, both within 0.4%.

For users who prioritize modern graphics APIs, the Pro 560X is the obvious pick. For users who live in OpenCL-only environments, the Pro 555 has the measured advantage. The data does not support a single universal winner, but it clearly favors the Pro 560X for the majority of graphics-facing tasks.