AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 occupy different corners of the GPU market: one is a mobile, power-sipping part aimed at professional laptops, the other a desktop card built for current-generation gaming. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the 5600M’s unique characteristics matter for specific use cases. This analysis breaks down exactly where each card stands, using only the benchmark results and specifications provided.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark table is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins all eight recorded tests. The Pro 5600M does not win a single benchmark in the comparison. However, the 5600M has a clear domain where it is unmatched: power consumption and physical integration. With a TDP of 50 W, an IGP slot width, and no power connectors, the 5600M is designed for portable devices where the RX 7700, a dual-slot card with two 8-pin connectors and a 200 W TDP, simply cannot exist.

The RX 7700’s wins are comprehensive, but they are not uniform. Its smallest victory is in Passmark DirectX 10, where it scores 92 against the 5600M’s 62, a 32.6% difference. Its largest win comes in Passmark DirectX 11, where the RX 7700 scores 186 versus 59, a 68.3% gap. The RX 7700 also dominates compute workloads, leading by 63.2% in Passmark GPU Compute. For anyone building a desktop system with room for a standard graphics card, the RX 7700 is the clear choice on raw performance. For a thin-and-light laptop or an all-in-one system, the 5600M is the only option that fits the power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two full generations of AMD architecture. The Pro 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip based on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm TSMC process. The RX 7700 uses the Navi 32 chip based on RDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. This is a significant node jump, contributing to the RX 7700’s higher clock speeds and efficiency.

The RX 7700 also features a larger physical package: its die size is 346 mm², with 28,100 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². No such data is provided for the 5600M. The RX 7700’s architecture includes 40 ray tracing cores, a feature the 5600M lacks entirely. The RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 5600M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 7700 offers Vulkan 1.4 versus the 5600M’s Vulkan 1.3.

Memory technology is another major divergence. The 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 394.2 GB/s. The RX 7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but achieves a much higher bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. The RX 7700’s memory clock runs at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective), compared to the 5600M’s 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective). The RX 7700 also doubles the ROP count to 96 versus 64 on the 5600M, and has a higher pixel rate (236.1 GPixel/s vs 73.22 GPixel/s) and texture rate (393.4 GTexel/s vs 183.0 GTexel/s).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 7700 scores 106028 against the 5600M’s 47783, a 54.9% advantage. This is a strong indicator for general compute tasks and reflects the RX 7700’s higher FP32 throughput of 25.18 TFLOPS versus 5.857 TFLOPS on the 5600M. The RX 7700’s FP16 performance is also notably different: 25.18 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the 5600M offers 11.71 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

In DirectX 11, the RX 7700’s score of 186 crushes the 5600M’s 59, a 68.3% deficit for the older card. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison. DirectX 12 shows a similar story, with the RX 7700 at 96 versus 39, a 59.4% difference. Even in DirectX 9, a legacy API, the RX 7700 leads 261 to 118, a 54.8% gap. The 2D performance gap is smaller but still decisive: 1206 for the RX 7700 versus 679 for the 5600M, a 43.7% difference.

The Passmark G3D score is a strong overall gaming indicator. Here, the RX 7700 scores 20974, more than double the 5600M’s 9279, a 55.8% lead. Compute performance is even more skewed: the RX 7700’s 10963 in Passmark GPU Compute is 63.2% higher than the 5600M’s 4031. The RX 7700 also has a dedicated 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2865, a test the 5600M does not have an entry for.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 is the superior performer in every measured category. It is 54.9% faster in OpenCL, 55.8% faster in Passmark G3D, and 63.2% faster in compute workloads. It also has double the memory capacity (16 GB vs 8 GB) and higher bandwidth. For any desktop gaming or workstation build where space and power are available, the RX 7700 is the only rational choice.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is not without merit. Its 50 W TDP, integrated form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable devices. The benchmark data shows it is not competitive with the RX 7700, but that is not its purpose. The 5600M’s nearest rival on average score is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, which is only 0.1% ahead. This places the 5600M in a performance tier that is roughly equivalent to a previous-generation desktop card, despite being a mobile chip. The RX 7700’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 370X, which is 0.1% behind, but its average score of 15852 is slightly lower than the 5600M’s 16351. This is an interesting anomaly: the 5600M has a higher average benchmark score across all tests, but the RX 7700 wins every head-to-head test. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix; the 5600M’s scores are pulled up by tests where the RX 7700 has no entry, such as Geekbench Metal and Vulkan.

The verdict is clear: buy the RX 7700 for performance, and consider the 5600M only if your hardware constraints demand a 50 W integrated solution. The RX 7700 is an active product, while the 5600M is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 7700 faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M in all benchmarks?

A: Yes. The RX 7700 wins all eight head-to-head benchmark tests, with deltas ranging from 32.6% in DirectX 10 to 68.3% in DirectX 11.

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

A: The largest gap is in Passmark DirectX 11, where the RX 7700 scores 186 versus the 5600M’s 59, a 68.3% difference.

Q: Does the Pro 5600M have ray tracing support?

A: No. The 5600M has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 7700 has 40 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 7700 has significantly more, with 624.1 GB/s compared to the 5600M’s 394.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 5600M has a 50 W TDP, while the RX 7700 has a 200 W TDP. The 5600M requires no power connectors; the RX 7700 requires two 8-pin connectors.

Q: Are these cards on the same architecture?

A: No. The 5600M uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm process, while the RX 7700 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5600M | AMD Radeon RX 7700 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Chip | Navi 12 | Navi 32 |

| Transistors | Not listed | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 346 mm² |

| Base Clock | 822 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1144 MHz | 2459 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not listed | 2041 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 2048 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 394.2 GB/s | 624.1 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective) | 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 160 | 160 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 73.22 GPixel/s | 236.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 183.0 GTexel/s | 393.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.857 TFLOPS | 25.18 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1) | 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | Not listed | 267 mm x 135 mm x 50 mm |

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

| Release Date | 2020-06-14 | 2025-09-17 |