AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT records an average benchmark score of 20713, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 sits at 17551. The RX 5600 XT also holds a higher percentile ranking at 66 versus 61 for the Pro 560.

Q: How large is the gap in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX 5600 XT scores 80376 in Geekbench Metal, which is 284.2% higher than the Pro 560's 20918. This is the smallest relative margin among the three shared tests.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two cards?

A: The largest delta appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 5600 XT's 68537 is 342.1% ahead of the Pro 560's 15504. The Vulkan test shows a 246.3% difference, with scores of 56218 versus 16232.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 5600 XT contains 2304 shading units, more than double the 1024 found in the Pro 560. This aligns with the substantial compute throughput difference between the two architectures.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 5600 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Pro 560 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ: 1.4 on the RX 5600 XT versus 1.3 on the Pro 560.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: For the RX 5600 XT, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M390X with a 0.2% delta. For the Pro 560, the closest is the AMD Radeon 780M at -0.2%, followed by the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 0.2%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural lineages. The RX 5600 XT uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. The Pro 560 relies on the Polaris 21 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. This generational split explains much of the performance gap.

The transistor counts tell a clear story of scale. The Navi 10 die packs 10,300 million transistors across a 251 mm² area, yielding a density of 41.0M transistors per mm². The Polaris 21 die is far smaller at 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, producing a density of 24.4M per mm². The newer process node allows the RX 5600 XT to fit over three times more transistors into roughly double the die area.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The RX 5600 XT uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth limited to 81.28 GB/s. The effective memory clock rates are 12 Gbps versus 5.1 Gbps, a substantial gap that affects texture streaming and high-resolution workloads.

The compute resources follow the same pattern. The RX 5600 XT has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Pro 560 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Pixel rate for the RX 5600 XT is 99.84 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Pro 560. Texture rate is 224.6 GTexel/s compared to 58.05 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance reinforces the hierarchy: 7.188 TFLOPS on the RX 5600 XT versus 1.858 TFLOPS on the Pro 560. The FP16 rates differ in ratio, with the RX 5600 XT achieving 14.38 TFLOPS at a 2:1 rate, while the Pro 560 stays at 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Interface support also differs, with PCIe 4.0 x16 on the RX 5600 XT versus PCIe 3.0 x8 on the Pro 560.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite between these two cards covers three Geekbench tests, and the RX 5600 XT wins all of them. The data shows a clean sweep with no tests won by the Pro 560.

Geekbench Metal produces the closest contest. The RX 5600 XT scores 80376 against 20918 for the Pro 560, a 284.2% advantage. This gap is substantial, but it is the smallest relative difference of the three tests. Metal performance often reflects driver optimization and memory bandwidth utilization, and the 288.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s bandwidth gap is likely a contributing factor.

Geekbench OpenCL shows the largest margin. The RX 5600 XT's 68537 dwarfs the Pro 560's 15504, representing a 342.1% delta. OpenCL workloads scale heavily with raw compute throughput, and the 7.188 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 difference aligns closely with this result. The shading unit count, 2304 versus 1024, also maps directly onto this workload type.

Geekbench Vulkan lands in between. The RX 5600 XT scores 56218, which is 246.3% above the Pro 560's 16232. Vulkan reduces driver overhead and exposes hardware capabilities more directly, so the architectural advantages of RDNA 1.0 over GCN 4.0 become apparent. The newer instruction scheduling and improved geometry processing in RDNA 1.0 likely explain part of this margin.

The recorded wins count is 3 for the RX 5600 XT and 0 for the Pro 560. No benchmark in the shared set favors the older card. These results are consistent with the specification gaps in memory bandwidth, compute units, and process technology.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 7 nm TSMC for the RX 5600 XT versus 14 nm GlobalFoundries for the Pro 560. Transistor count: 10,300 million versus 3,000 million. Die size: 251 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density: 41.0M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm².

Memory configuration diverges completely. The RX 5600 XT has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. Effective memory clock is 12 Gbps on the newer card versus 5.1 Gbps on the older one.

Compute unit counts show a clear hierarchy. Shading units: 2304 versus 1024. TMUs: 144 versus 64. ROPs: 64 versus 16. Pixel rate: 99.84 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 224.6 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.188 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS. FP16: 14.38 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications differ. The RX 5600 XT has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Pro 560 has a TDP of 75 W and uses no power connectors, functioning as an IGP with a portable device dependent display output. The RX 5600 XT is dual-slot and measures 267 mm in length, while the Pro 560 has no recorded dimensions.

Bus interface and display outputs also differ. The RX 5600 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and offers 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro 560 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 with portable device dependent outputs. API support shows DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Release dates are 2020-01-20 for the RX 5600 XT and 2017-04-17 for the Pro 560.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600 XT wins in every measured benchmark category. Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan all favor the newer card by margins ranging from 246.3% to 342.1%. This dominance extends to raw specification comparisons: memory bandwidth, FP32 throughput, texture rate, and pixel rate are all multiple times higher on the RX 5600 XT.

For gaming workloads, the RX 5600 XT's advantages are decisive. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2304 shading units provide the resources needed for modern game engines. The DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility cover current graphics APIs. The 6 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for high-resolution textures than the Pro 560's 4 GB.

The Pro 560 has no benchmark wins in the shared tests, but its profile suits specific use cases. The 75 W TDP with no power connectors makes it suitable for systems where power delivery and physical space are constrained. As an IGP with portable device dependent outputs, it targets Apple Mac systems from the 500 Series generation rather than general-purpose desktop use.

For compute workloads, the RX 5600 XT's FP32 rate of 7.188 TFLOPS is nearly four times the Pro 560's 1.858 TFLOPS. The OpenCL benchmark confirms this with a 342.1% delta. The Pro 560's FP16 performance equals its FP32 at 1.858 TFLOPS, but the RX 5600 XT doubles its FP32 rate to 14.38 TFLOPS when using FP16.

The Verdict

The data points strongly toward the RX 5600 XT for almost any use case. It wins all three shared benchmarks by wide margins, has superior memory bandwidth, more compute units, and a newer architecture. The percentile ranking of 66 versus 61 places it higher among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M390X, sits just 0.2% away, indicating that the RX 5600 XT competes with a slightly older high-end mobile GPU rather than with the much older Pro 560.

The Pro 560's position is defined by its constraints, not its performance. It matches closely with integrated graphics like the AMD Radeon 780M, which is only 0.2% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro 460, which is 0.2% behind. This suggests the Pro 560 occupies a niche for legacy Mac systems where the 75 W power envelope and IGP form factor matter more than raw throughput.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the target platform. If the system accepts a dual-slot, 150 W card with an 8-pin connector, the RX 5600 XT is the clear choice based on every recorded metric. If the requirement is a low-power, connector-free IGP for a portable Mac environment, the Pro 560 is the only option that fits that form factor. The performance gap, however, is not close: the RX 5600 XT is between 246.3% and 342.1% faster across all tested workloads.