AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X occupy entirely different corners of the GPU landscape. The RX 7600 is a modern, active desktop part built for current gaming and compute workloads, while the Pro 555X is an end-of-life mobile chip from 2018 designed for professional laptops. The benchmark database records a clear hierarchy between them, but the more interesting analysis lies in how their architectural generations and design goals shape where each can still be relevant.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and by a massive margin. In the two shared tests, it dominates both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. For any task that leverages modern compute APIs, the RX 7600 is the only sensible choice. Its wins are not marginal; they are generational leaps. The Pro 555X has no recorded victory in any direct comparison.

However, the Pro 555X does hold a niche based on its form factor and power profile. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, meaning it drops into portable devices without additional cabling. The RX 7600 is a dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested power supply. For a compact laptop or a system with strict power and space constraints, the Pro 555X is the only one of the two that fits. Its performance is modest, but its physical footprint is a decisive advantage in that specific use case.

The RX 7600 also wins on sheer feature support. It brings ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Pro 555X caps out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Any workload that depends on modern rendering features simply will not run properly on the older chip.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely separate architectural lineages. The RX 7600 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, built around the Navi 33 chip with a 204 mm² die size. It packs 13,300 million transistors, giving it a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The Pro 555X, in contrast, uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Its Polaris 21 chip is smaller at 123 mm² and contains only 3,000 million transistors, or 24.4 million per square millimeter.

These process and architecture differences explain the massive performance gap. The RX 7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines, alongside 32 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Pro 555X has just 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. Clock speeds tell the same story: the RX 7600 runs at a 1720 MHz base and 2655 MHz boost, while the Pro 555X has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database, only its memory clock of 1470 MHz.

Memory configuration further separates them. The RX 7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 555X has half the capacity at 4 GB GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth drops to 94.08 GB/s. The RX 7600 also has a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface versus the Pro 555X's PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the potential transfer rate advantage.

Compute throughput is not even close. The RX 7600 delivers 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, with a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s. The Pro 555X manages only 1,393.2 GFLOPS, 14.51 GPixel/s, and 43.54 GTexel/s. That is a 15.6 times difference in raw FP32 compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database's head-to-head results show the RX 7600 winning both shared tests decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600 scores 88,051 against the Pro 555X's 12,628, a delta of 597.3 percent. This is the single largest advantage recorded between the two. It reflects not just the clock and core count differences but also the efficiency gains of RDNA 3.0 over GCN 4.0 for compute-heavy tasks.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7600 again wins with 34,401 points versus 12,855 for the Pro 555X, a 167.6 percent advantage. While still a decisive victory, the smaller margin compared to OpenCL suggests the older chip is relatively less disadvantaged in Vulkan, though still far behind. The Pro 555X's only recorded benchmark not shared with the RX 7600 is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 14,479, but there is no RX 7600 Metal result for comparison.

Looked at through the overall average score, the RX 7600 sits at 15,171 across all its recorded benchmarks, while the Pro 555X averages 13,321. The RX 7600's percentile rank among all GPUs is 57, versus 54 for the Pro 555X. Those percentile numbers are close, but the average scores are skewed by the fact that the RX 7600 has many more benchmarks recorded, including several older DirectX tests where it scores lower, such as 84 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 58 in Passmark DirectX 12. The Pro 555X only has three benchmarks, all in modern APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is significantly faster, scoring 88,051 versus 12,628 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 597.3 percent advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 555X support ray tracing?

A: No, it has no ray tracing cores. The RX 7600 includes 32 ray tracing cores.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon Pro 555X run modern DirectX titles?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), but not DirectX 12 Ultimate. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The RX 7600 has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Pro 555X has 94.08 GB/s, a 3.06 times difference.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 7600 at 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to 24.4 million for the Pro 555X.

Q: Is the Pro 555X still in production?

A: No, it is marked as end-of-life in the database. The RX 7600 is listed as active.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7600 | AMD Radeon Pro 555X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 94.08 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 128 | 48 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 21.75 TFLOPS | 1,393.2 GFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 14.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 339.8 GTexel/s | 43.54 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 165 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-05-24 | 2018-07-15 |

| Launch MSRP | 269 USD | None |

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity for most buyers. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is the superior product in every measured benchmark, with a 597.3 percent lead in OpenCL and a 167.6 percent lead in Vulkan over the Pro 555X. It has more memory, more bandwidth, more compute units, and support for modern graphics features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its 57th percentile rank among all GPUs places it above the Pro 555X's 54th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 15,171 is 13.9 percent higher than the Pro 555X's 13,321.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X is not a competitor; it is a legacy part. Its 75 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable systems where the RX 7600's dual-slot design and 8-pin connector are impossible. But that is its only advantage, and it is a physical one, not a performance one. For anyone building a desktop or upgrading a laptop with a discrete GPU slot, the RX 7600 is the only rational choice. The Pro 555X should only be considered if the system's power delivery and chassis constraints leave no other option, and even then, expectations should be limited to basic 1080p gaming or light compute at best. The benchmark database shows a generational gap that cannot be bridged by any amount of driver optimization or workload tuning.