AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs AMD Radeon R9 370X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins all three head-to-head tests, with wins in Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The AMD Radeon R9 370X does not win a single comparison.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Metal API?

A: The Pro 5600M scores 55,030 in Geekbench Metal, which is 334.1% higher than the R9 370X's 12,676. That represents a more than fourfold advantage in this specific test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Pro 5600M has an average benchmark score of 16,351, while the R9 370X averages 15,862. The Pro 5600M leads by 489 points, or roughly 3.1%, despite the much larger single-test deltas.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Pro 5600M sits at the 59th percentile, while the R9 370X sits at the 58th percentile. Despite the large benchmark deltas, both cards occupy nearly the same overall position in the global distribution.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on average score?

A: The Pro 5600M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, with an average score of 16,361 and a delta of -0.1%. The R9 370X's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7700, scoring 15,852 with a delta of +0.1%.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, but with differences. The Pro 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R9 370X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is built on RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 12 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R9 370X uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Trinidad chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference is substantial — 7 nm versus 28 nm — which directly influences power efficiency and transistor density.

The R9 370X has published transistor data: 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, giving a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Pro 5600M does not list transistor count or die size in the available data, so a direct density comparison is not possible. However, the architectural leap is clear from the specifications that are available.

Shading unit counts differ markedly. The Pro 5600M has 2,560 shading units, exactly double the R9 370X's 1,280. Texture mapping units also double: 160 versus 80. The render output units are 64 on the Pro 5600M versus 32 on the R9 370X. These are not incremental changes — they represent a fundamental scaling of the compute pipeline.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 370X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 179.2 GB/s. The Pro 5600M's memory bandwidth is more than double that of the older card, and the bus width is eight times wider.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R9 370X has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The Pro 5600M runs lower at 822 MHz base and 1144 MHz boost. This suggests the Pro 5600M relies on architectural efficiency and memory bandwidth rather than raw clock speed to achieve its performance.

The R9 370X also exposes more physical characteristics: it is 221 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a dual-slot design and 2x 6-pin power connectors. The Pro 5600M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no power connectors and a slot width listed as IGP, indicating a mobile or embedded form factor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins every head-to-head benchmark, and wins decisively. In Geekbench Metal, it is 334.1% ahead. In OpenCL, it leads by 84.5%. In Vulkan, the gap expands to 414.8%. If the question is raw performance, the Pro 5600M is the answer.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more subtle story. The Pro 5600M averages 16,351, while the R9 370X averages 15,862. That is only a 3.1% difference in overall standing. The percentile rankings reinforce this: 59th versus 58th. In the broader context of all GPUs, these two cards are nearly equivalent in overall position, despite the massive single-test deltas.

Who should pick which? The Pro 5600M is the choice for anyone prioritizing Metal performance, HBM2 memory bandwidth, or modern feature support like Vulkan 1.3 and PCIe 4.0. The R9 370X, with its 180 W TDP and dual-slot design, is a conventional desktop card with a 450 W suggested PSU and a launch MSRP of 199 USD. It is a legacy product from the Pirate Islands generation, while the Pro 5600M is a mobile-focused RDNA part.

The R9 370X's only clear advantages are its higher base clock (980 MHz vs 822 MHz) and its published transistor data. It also has a longer list of physical specifications — length, height, power connectors, and display outputs. But in every measurable benchmark, it loses. The verdict is straightforward: the Pro 5600M is the superior performer, and the R9 370X is the older, less capable option.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 7 nm for the Pro 5600M versus 28 nm for the R9 370X. The R9 370X lists 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die with a density of 13.2M / mm²; the Pro 5600M has no such data.

Clock speeds differ: the Pro 5600M runs at 822 MHz base and 1144 MHz boost, while the R9 370X runs at 980 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The Pro 5600M's memory clock is 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective), whereas the R9 370X's memory runs at 1400 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Pro 5600M has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: the Pro 5600M has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The R9 370X has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 73.22 GPixel/s versus 32.96 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 183.0 GTexel/s versus 82.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.857 TFLOPS versus 2.637 TFLOPS. The Pro 5600M also has FP16 capability at 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1); the R9 370X has no FP16 data.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The Pro 5600M has a 50 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The R9 370X has a 180 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a 450 W suggested PSU. The R9 370X measures 221 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the Pro 5600M has no dimensions listed.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the Pro 5600M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 370X. Display outputs: the Pro 5600M is "Portable Device Dependent," while the R9 370X offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three head-to-head tests all go to the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, but the margins vary wildly. The smallest delta is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro 5600M scores 47,783 against the R9 370X's 25,893. That is an 84.5% advantage, meaning the Pro 5600M nearly doubles the older card's compute performance in this API.

Geekbench Metal shows a much larger gap. The Pro 5600M scores 55,030, while the R9 370X scores 12,676. The delta is 334.1%. This is a dramatic result, indicating that the R9 370X is particularly weak in Metal workloads. The Pro 5600M's RDNA architecture and HBM2 memory appear to be far better suited to Apple's graphics API.

The largest win for the Pro 5600M comes in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the Pro 5600M scores 46,425, and the R9 370X scores 9,018. The delta is 414.8%, a fivefold difference. This is the most lopsided result in the entire comparison.

It is notably the R9 370X only has three benchmarks listed in total, while the Pro 5600M has ten. The Pro 5600M's additional tests include Passmark DirectX 10 (62), DirectX 11 (59), DirectX 12 (39), DirectX 9 (118), G2D (679), G3D (9279), and GPU Compute (4031). These scores are not available for the R9 370X, so a full multi-API comparison is impossible. The available data, however, is unambiguous: the Pro 5600M wins all three head-to-head tests, and wins by a large margin in two of them.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins in every benchmark category where both cards have data. It leads in Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is higher at 16,351 versus 15,862. It has a higher percentile ranking at 59 versus 58. It has more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and higher pixel and texture rates.

The Pro 5600M's strengths are particularly pronounced in Metal and Vulkan, where it holds a 334.1% and 414.8% lead respectively. These are the workloads where the architectural differences between RDNA 1.0 and GCN 1.0 are most visible. The 7 nm process, HBM2 memory, and doubled compute resources all contribute to this dominance.

The AMD Radeon R9 370X does not win any benchmark. Its only advantages are in physical specifications: it has a higher base clock (980 MHz vs 822 MHz), a higher memory clock (1400 MHz vs 770 MHz), and it is a conventional dual-slot desktop card with standard display outputs. It also has a published transistor count and die size, which the Pro 5600M lacks. The R9 370X's 180 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU indicate it is designed for desktop systems with ample power delivery, whereas the Pro 5600M's 50 W TDP and IGP form factor target mobile or compact platforms.

In terms of use cases, the Pro 5600M is the clear choice for Metal-based workflows, high-bandwidth compute tasks, or any application that benefits from 394.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The R9 370X, with its older GCN architecture and 2 GB GDDR5, is best suited for legacy desktop builds where its 980 MHz base clock and dual-slot cooling are acceptable. The data does not support any scenario where the R9 370X outperforms the Pro 5600M in compute or graphics benchmarks. The Pro 5600M wins three out of three head-to-head tests, and the R9 370X wins zero.