AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two direct comparison tests between the AMD Radeon Pro 555X and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, both of which are compute-oriented workloads. The results are decisive in favor of the RX 6500 XT, but the margin varies meaningfully between the two APIs.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 points, while the Pro 555X manages 12,628 points. This represents a 73.8% deficit for the older card, meaning the RX 6500 XT delivers roughly four times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is even more pronounced in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6500 XT posts 54,724 points against 12,855 points for the Pro 555X, a 76.5% difference. The RX 6500 XT is the winner in both recorded head-to-head tests, taking 2 wins out of 2 with no victories for the Pro 555X.

For context on where each card sits in the broader landscape, the database places the Pro 555X at the 54th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13,321. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 is 0.2% ahead, the AMD FirePro M6100 is 0.2% behind, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M is 0.3% behind, and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M is 0.4% behind. This indicates the Pro 555X is positioned in a very dense performance band where small differences separate adjacent products.

The RX 6500 XT, by contrast, sits at the 51st percentile with an average score of 11,842, despite its dominant head-to-head wins. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, which is 1% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, which is 1.3% ahead. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is 1.4% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is 1.9% behind. The apparent contradiction between a lower percentile and a massive head-to-head margin is explained by the fact that the RX 6500 XT averages across a much wider set of benchmark suites, including older DirectX tests where its architectural strengths do not translate into proportional wins.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the RX 6500 XT, the highest recorded score is 54,724 in Geekbench Vulkan, followed by 48,289 in Geekbench OpenCL. The Passmark G3D score is 9,608, and the Passmark GPU compute score is 4,456. Older API tests show lower results: Passmark DirectX 9 at 108, DirectX 11 at 90, DirectX 10 at 60, and DirectX 12 at 38. The Passmark G2D score is 815. The Pro 555X only has three recorded benchmarks, all in Geekbench: Metal at 14,479, Vulkan at 12,855, and OpenCL at 12,628. The Metal score is notably the highest for that card, but no Metal result exists for the RX 6500 XT in the database, so a direct comparison on Apple's API is not possible.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Pro 555X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The process shrink is significant: the RX 6500 XT packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The Pro 555X contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 6500 XT achieves more than double the transistor density despite the smaller die.

Compute resources also differ substantially. The Pro 555X has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6500 XT also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 555X. Floating-point performance reflects the architectural leap: the Pro 555X delivers 1,393.2 GFLOPS in FP32, while the RX 6500 XT reaches 5.765 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Pro 555X maintains a 1:1 ratio at 1,393.2 GFLOPS, whereas the RX 6500 XT achieves 11.53 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, indicating hardware-accelerated half-precision throughput.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Pro 555X lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective). The RX 6500 XT has a base clock of 2310 MHz, a game clock of 2610 MHz, and a boost clock of 2815 MHz. Memory configurations also diverge: the Pro 555X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yet achieves 143.9 GB/s of bandwidth due to the much higher effective memory speed of 18 Gbps.

Power and physical characteristics separate the two as well. The Pro 555X is rated at 75 W TDP, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) in slot width, and requires no power connectors. The RX 6500 XT is rated at 107 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested power supply of 300 W. The bus interface also differs: the Pro 555X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the Pro 555X, while the RX 6500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support shows a generational step. The Pro 555X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6500 XT also carries the Radeon RX 6000 series designation, while the Pro 555X belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) generation. Release dates reflect the gap: the Pro 555X launched on 2018-07-15, and the RX 6500 XT launched on 2022-01-18. Both are now end-of-life products. The RX 6500 XT lists a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500 XT wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Pro 555X. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 73.8% ahead, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it is 76.5% ahead. This makes the RX 6500 XT the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that utilize OpenCL or Vulkan APIs. Its ray tracing cores also give it a hardware capability that the Pro 555X lacks entirely, which matters for any application that can offload ray-traced effects. The higher pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s and texture rate of 180.2 GTexel/s versus 43.54 GTexel/s further indicate that the RX 6500 XT is substantially faster in rasterization and texture-heavy tasks.

The Pro 555X does have one recorded advantage: its Geekbench Metal score of 14,479 is its best result, and the database contains no Metal benchmark for the RX 6500 XT. On Apple platforms where Metal is the primary graphics API, the Pro 555X remains the only one of the two with verified performance data. Its lower TDP of 75 W and IGP form factor also make it suitable for systems where space and power constraints are severe, such as portable Mac devices. The PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while older, is still workable for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, and the 128-bit memory bus provides a wider path compared to the RX 6500 XT's 64-bit bus, although the RX 6500 XT's higher effective memory speed more than compensates in bandwidth.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the RX 6500 XT shows a mixed profile. Passmark scores range from 38 in DirectX 12 to 108 in DirectX 9, with DirectX 11 at 90 and DirectX 10 at 60. These numbers suggest that the RX 6500 XT performs better in older DirectX versions than in the newest one, which is unusual for a modern GPU but relevant for users running older games or applications. The Pro 555X has no recorded Passmark scores, so no direct comparison is possible in those tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Pro 555X has an average benchmark score of 13,321, while the RX 6500 XT has an average of 11,842. This puts the Pro 555X at the 54th percentile and the RX 6500 XT at the 51st percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How large is the gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Pro 555X scores 12,855, a 76.5% difference in favor of the RX 6500 XT.

Q: Does the Pro 555X support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro 555X has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The Pro 555X has 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 6500 XT has 143.9 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 6500 XT has a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The Pro 555X has 24.4 million per square millimeter, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The Pro 555X was released on 2018-07-15, and the RX 6500 XT was released on 2022-01-18.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the faster GPU in every directly comparable benchmark. Its 73.8% lead in OpenCL and 76.5% lead in Vulkan over the Pro 555X are decisive, and its additional features, such as ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, give it capabilities the Pro 555X cannot match. The 6 nm process node and higher clock speeds (2310 MHz base, 2610 MHz game, 2815 MHz boost) further reinforce its performance advantage. For any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 6500 XT is the clear pick.

The Pro 555X, however, is not without a niche. Its best recorded score comes from Geekbench Metal at 14,479, and the database has no Metal result for the RX 6500 XT. On Apple platforms where Metal is the standard API, the Pro 555X has verified performance data that the RX 6500 XT lacks. Its 75 W TDP and IGP form factor also make it suitable for compact, low-power systems where a dual-slot, 107 W card with a 6-pin connector would not fit. The 128-bit memory bus is wider than the RX 6500 XT's 64-bit bus, though the RX 6500 XT compensates with higher effective memory speed.

The RX 6500 XT is the better choice for gamers and compute users who prioritize raw performance, modern API support, and ray tracing capability. The Pro 555X is the better choice for Apple ecosystem users and constrained form factors where Metal performance and low power draw are the primary concerns. The benchmark data does not support picking the Pro 555X for general-purpose performance, but its specific strengths in Metal and its IGP design give it a legitimate, if narrow, use case.