AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and AMD Radeon Pro W5500 are both RDNA 1.0 professional GPUs, but they target completely different physical environments. The benchmark data shows the 5600M wins 7 of 10 head-to-head tests, yet the W5500 counters with decisive victories in compute and 2D workloads, making the choice entirely dependent on whether the task is graphics-heavy or compute-oriented.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided win for the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M comes in the Passmark DirectX 10 test, where it scores 62 against the W5500’s 47, a 31.9% advantage. This is the single largest performance gap in either direction across all ten benchmark comparisons. The 5600M also demonstrates a strong lead in Vulkan workloads, scoring 46425 versus 42021, a 10.5% delta that suggests superior API-level efficiency in modern graphics pipelines.

The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the 5600M ahead by 4.8%, with scores of 47783 and 45615 respectively. This margin is smaller than the Vulkan gap but still consistent. The DirectX 11 test follows a similar pattern, with the 5600M winning 59 to 56, a 5.4% edge. The DirectX 12 test is a dead heat, with both cards scoring exactly 39, indicating that the newest graphics API neutralizes the architectural differences between them.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500’s strongest counterattack comes in the Passmark GPU Compute test, where it scores 4804 against the 5600M’s 4031, a 16.1% victory. This is a substantial margin and highlights a clear compute-oriented advantage. The W5500 also wins the Passmark G2D test decisively, scoring 806 versus 679, a 15.8% lead in 2D graphics throughput. The DirectX 9 result favors the W5500 as well, with 126 against 118, a 6.3% win for legacy API performance.

The Passmark G3D test, which is a general 3D graphics benchmark, goes to the 5600M with a score of 9279 versus 8978, a 3.4% margin. This result, combined with the DirectX 10 and Vulkan wins, paints a picture of the 5600M as the stronger overall graphics performer. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the 5600M averages 16351, while the W5500 averages 15679. The 5600M sits at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the W5500’s 58th percentile. Interestingly, the 5600M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT with an average score of 16361, a negligible 0.1% difference, while the W5500’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at 15548, a 0.8% gap.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture and the 7 nm process node at TSMC, but they use entirely different chips. The 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip, while the W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip. The Navi 14 chip in the W5500 has a documented transistor count of 6,400 million on a 158 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The Navi 12’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data, but the shading unit count reveals the scale difference: the 5600M has 2560 shading units, while the W5500 has 1408, a near-doubling of compute resources.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 394.2 GB/s. The W5500 also has 8 GB, but it uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. This is a 76% bandwidth advantage for the 5600M, which is typical of the HBM2 versus GDDR6 trade-off. The memory clocks reflect this: the 5600M runs at 770 MHz with 1540 Mbps effective, while the W5500 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

The texture and pixel rates tell a mixed story. The 5600M has 160 TMUs and 64 ROPs, producing a texture rate of 183.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 73.22 GPixel/s. The W5500 has 88 TMUs and 32 ROPs, yielding 163.2 GTexel/s and 59.36 GPixel/s. The 5600M leads in both, but the texture rate gap is only 12.1%, while the pixel rate gap is 23.3%. The clock speeds are inverted: the W5500 runs at a base of 1744 MHz and a boost of 1855 MHz, while the 5600M runs at a much lower 822 MHz base and 1144 MHz boost. The W5500’s higher clocks compensate for its smaller core, but not enough to overcome the 5600M’s raw resource advantage.

The power envelopes are drastically different. The 5600M is rated at 50 W TDP and is an integrated form factor (IGP), while the W5500 is a single-slot card at 125 W TDP requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The 5600M has no power connectors and its display outputs are portable device dependent, whereas the W5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The bus interface also differs: the 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The W5500 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 5600M is limited to Vulkan 1.3, but both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the clear winner for graphics-heavy workloads. Its DirectX 10 performance is 31.9% higher, and its Vulkan score is 10.5% better, making it the preferred option for modern 3D rendering and Vulkan-based applications. The 5600M also leads in Geekbench Metal (55030 vs 54302, a 1.3% edge) and Geekbench OpenCL (47783 vs 45615, a 4.8% edge), which positions it well for Apple ecosystem workflows and general GPU compute via OpenCL. The 3.4% lead in Passmark G3D reinforces the 5600M as the better all-around 3D performer.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins in specific niches. Its 16.1% lead in Passmark GPU Compute indicates a stronger raw compute throughput, which could be relevant for tasks like rendering physics, simulations, or other non-graphics compute workloads. The 15.8% advantage in Passmark G2D makes it the better choice for 2D-heavy professional applications like CAD drafting, UI rendering, or spreadsheet-heavy workflows where 2D acceleration matters. The W5500 also has a 6.3% edge in DirectX 9, which benefits legacy application compatibility.

The DirectX 12 tie at 39 points suggests that neither card has a decisive edge in the most modern Microsoft graphics API, so users should look to other benchmarks to differentiate. The 5600M’s higher bandwidth (394.2 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s) is a theoretical advantage for large data sets, but the W5500’s higher clock speeds (1855 MHz boost vs 1144 MHz boost) and compute benchmark win indicate it handles certain workloads more efficiently per clock.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw graphics performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins 7 of 10 head-to-head benchmarks, including a 31.9% lead in Passmark DirectX 10 and a 10.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, making it the stronger graphics performer overall.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 better for compute workloads?

A: Yes, the W5500 scores 4804 in Passmark GPU Compute versus the 5600M’s 4031, a 16.1% advantage, indicating superior compute throughput despite having fewer shading units.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The 5600M uses HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and achieves 394.2 GB/s, while the W5500 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and achieves 224.0 GB/s, giving the 5600M a 76% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The 5600M has a 50 W TDP and is an integrated form factor, while the W5500 has a 125 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, making the 5600M significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Are the APIs different between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the W5500 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the 5600M supports Vulkan 1.3, a minor version difference.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 5600M averages 16351 across all benchmarks, while the W5500 averages 15679, a 4.3% difference in favor of the 5600M.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M for graphics-centric workloads. Its 7-3 win record in head-to-head benchmarks, combined with a 4.3% higher average benchmark score and a 59th versus 58th percentile ranking, establishes it as the superior performer in most scenarios. The 5600M’s massive bandwidth advantage (394.2 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s) and higher shading unit count (2560 vs 1408) provide a solid foundation for demanding 3D applications, and its 50 W TDP makes it far more practical for mobile or integrated deployments.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the specialist choice. Its 16.1% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 15.8% lead in Passmark G2D make it the better option for compute-heavy tasks and 2D-focused professional workflows. The W5500’s higher clock speeds (1855 MHz boost versus 1144 MHz boost) suggest it extracts more per-core efficiency, and its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it ready for multi-monitor setups out of the box, whereas the 5600M’s outputs are portable device dependent.

For most professional users who prioritize 3D rendering, Vulkan performance, or Metal-based workflows, the 5600M is the data-backed winner. For users who need raw compute throughput, legacy DirectX 9 support, or a standalone single-slot card with dedicated display outputs, the W5500 offers specific advantages that the 5600M cannot match. The 5600M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (0.1% difference), while the W5500 aligns closely with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (0.8% difference), placing both in similar performance tiers but with different strengths.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5600M | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

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

| Chip | Navi 12 | Navi 14 |

| Transistors | Not listed | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 822 MHz | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1144 MHz | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 2048 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 394.2 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 160 | 88 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 73.22 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 183.0 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.857 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1) | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | Not listed | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2020-06-14 | 2020-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 399 USD |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi Series) |