AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs AMD Radeon R9 M380 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon R9 M380 and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X, and the results split the pair evenly. In the Geekbench Metal test, the R9 M380 posts a score of 18,476 against the Pro 555X's 14,479, a decisive 27.6% advantage. This is the largest margin in either direction between the two cards, and it places the R9 M380 in a different performance tier for Metal workloads. The Pro 555X, however, counters in the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 12,628 versus the R9 M380's 12,565, a narrow 0.5% edge. That is a razor-thin difference, effectively a statistical tie, but it does give the Pro 555X a win on the board.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the R9 M380 lands at 15,521, which is 16.5% higher than the Pro 555X's 13,321. This aggregate figure reflects the R9 M380's commanding Metal performance, which outweighs the Pro 555X's marginal OpenCL advantage. The percentile rankings reinforce this gap: the R9 M380 sits at the 58th percentile across all GPUs in the database, while the Pro 555X sits at the 54th percentile. For context, the R9 M380's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with an average score of 15,548 (a 0.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15,679 (a 1% difference). The Pro 555X, by contrast, clusters with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 at 13,300 (0.2% difference) and the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354 (a 0.2% difference). The R9 M380 is competing against desktop-class hardware from a higher tier, while the Pro 555X sits alongside older mobile and midrange parts.

The Metal benchmark disparity is worth emphasizing because it is not a small gap. A 27.6% delta in Metal means the R9 M380 delivers substantially higher frame rates or compute throughput in applications that leverage Apple's Metal API. The OpenCL result, meanwhile, shows near-parity, with the Pro 555X edging ahead by just 63 points. In practical terms, the recorded data suggests that for OpenCL-based workflows, the two cards are interchangeable, but for Metal-based workloads, the R9 M380 is clearly the superior choice.

Where Each One Wins

The win split is one benchmark apiece, so the use-case distinction comes down to API preference rather than overall capability. The AMD Radeon R9 M380 wins in Metal, and that is significant for macOS environments where Metal is the primary graphics and compute API. The 27.6% lead in Geekbench Metal translates to better performance in Metal-accelerated applications, including many creative tools, games, and compute tasks that run on Apple platforms. The R9 M380 also holds the higher average benchmark score overall, meaning that across the recorded tests, it is the faster card by a meaningful margin.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X wins in OpenCL, but the margin is negligible at 0.5%. In real-world OpenCL workloads, the difference between 12,565 and 12,628 points is within run-to-run variance, so the Pro 555X does not offer a tangible advantage in OpenCL-specific tasks. Instead, the Pro 555X's win is more about feature positioning. It supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the R9 M380 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. That means the Pro 555X is compatible with newer Vulkan extensions and applications that require the 1.3 specification. The R9 M380 also lacks a recorded fp16 performance figure, while the Pro 555X delivers fp16 at a 1:1 ratio with fp32, which can matter for certain compute workloads that use half-precision arithmetic.

For users prioritizing Metal performance, the R9 M380 is the clear pick. For users who need the latest Vulkan support or fp16 compute capabilities, the Pro 555X has the feature edge. The R9 M380 also benefits from a higher pixel rate and texture rate, which we will cover in the specification section, giving it an advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The Pro 555X counters with a lower power draw and a more modern manufacturing process, which we will also detail below.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The R9 M380 is built on GCN 2.0, while the Pro 555X uses GCN 4.0. This is a significant architectural leap. GCN 4.0 introduced improvements in memory compression, shader efficiency, and power management over GCN 2.0, though the recorded data does not provide per-IPC numbers. The R9 M380's chip is codenamed Strato, while the Pro 555X uses Polaris 21. The manufacturing process differs substantially: the R9 M380 is fabbed on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Pro 555X is fabbed on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The smaller process node gives the Pro 555X a transistor density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the R9 M380's 13.0 million per square millimeter.

Despite the node shrink, the Pro 555X packs more transistors overall: 3,000 million versus 2,080 million for the R9 M380. However, the die size tells a different story. The Pro 555X's die measures 123 mm², which is smaller than the R9 M380's 160 mm². This is a direct result of the denser 14 nm process. The R9 M380 is part of the Gem System generation, specifically the R9 M300 series, and its predecessor is listed as Solar System, with Polaris Mobile as its successor. The Pro 555X belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation, specifically the 500X Series, with no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

Core counts are identical between the two cards: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The architectural differences therefore manifest in efficiency and feature support rather than raw core count. The Pro 555X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M380 tops out at Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro 555X also records fp16 performance at 1,393.2 GFLOPS, matching its fp32 output at a 1:1 ratio, while the R9 M380 has no recorded fp16 figure.

Another key difference is the bus interface. The R9 M380 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Pro 555X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The x16 link on the R9 M380 provides double the bandwidth to the host system, which can matter for data transfer in compute workloads that stream large datasets. The Pro 555X's x8 interface is a limitation, though the recorded data does not specify how much it impacts real-world performance.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several differences beyond the architecture and process node. The R9 M380 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, while the Pro 555X lists no base or boost clock in the database. The memory clocks differ slightly: the R9 M380 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Pro 555X runs at 1470 MHz with 5.9 Gbps effective. This translates to a memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s for the R9 M380 versus 94.08 GB/s for the Pro 555X, a 2% difference in favor of the R9 M380. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

The pixel rate and texture rate favor the R9 M380. The R9 M380 achieves 16.00 GPixel/s and 48.00 GTexel/s, while the Pro 555X achieves 14.51 GPixel/s and 43.54 GTexel/s. That is a 10.3% advantage in pixel rate and a 10.2% advantage in texture rate for the R9 M380, which aligns with its higher clock speeds. The FP32 performance also favors the R9 M380 at 1.536 TFLOPS versus the Pro 555X's 1,393.2 GFLOPS, a 10.2% gap. The Pro 555X matches that FP32 figure with its FP16 output, while the R9 M380 has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications differ sharply. The Pro 555X has a TDP of 75 W, while the R9 M380 has no recorded TDP. The Pro 555X is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors, indicating it is designed for soldered integration in laptops. The R9 M380 has no recorded slot width or power connector data. The Pro 555X's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R9 M380 has no display output data. The Pro 555X also has a listed TDP, making it a lower-power solution, which is consistent with its 14 nm process and newer architecture.

Release dates differ by over three years: the R9 M380 launched on May 4, 2015, while the Pro 555X launched on July 15, 2018. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP, so no pricing data is available in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M380 has a higher average benchmark score of 15,521 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 555X's 13,321, a 16.5% advantage. The R9 M380 also sits at the 58th percentile versus the Pro 555X's 54th percentile.

Q: How big is the Metal performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the R9 M380 scores 18,476 against the Pro 555X's 14,479, giving the R9 M380 a 27.6% lead. This is the largest recorded difference between the two cards.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 555X win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Pro 555X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 12,628 versus the R9 M380's 12,565, a 0.5% margin. This is a very narrow win and likely within test variance.

Q: What are the architectural differences?

A: The R9 M380 uses GCN 2.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the Pro 555X uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The Pro 555X has a smaller die (123 mm² versus 160 mm²) but more transistors (3,000 million versus 2,080 million).

Q: Do they have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. They also both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M380 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro 555X also has FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which the R9 M380 does not record.

Q: What are the power and interface differences?

A: The Pro 555X has a 75 W TDP and uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the R9 M380 has no recorded TDP and uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro 555X is listed as an IGP with no power connectors, while the R9 M380 has no slot width or power connector data.