AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs AMD Radeon R9 M380 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M380 and AMD Radeon Pro 560X are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different eras of AMD’s GCN architecture, and their benchmark results tell a story of conflicting strengths. The R9 M380, built on 28 nm with GCN 2.0, dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the Pro 560X, using 14 nm GCN 4.0, edges ahead in Metal graphics tests. With one win apiece in head-to-head testing, the choice between them depends entirely on the workload, not on overall superiority.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL applications, the AMD Radeon R9 M380 is the stronger option, delivering a 30% higher score (12,565 vs 9,663) in the geekbench_opencl test. This is a decisive margin that suggests the older GCN 2.0 architecture, despite its larger 28 nm process and lower transistor count, has an advantage in certain parallel compute tasks. Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X wins the geekbench_metal test by a narrow 1.5% margin (18,763 vs 18,476), indicating it is better suited for graphics-centric workloads that leverage Apple’s Metal API.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the two are nearly inseparable. The R9 M380 posts an average benchmark score of 15,521, placing it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 560X averages 15,082, sitting in the 57th percentile. The R9 M380’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, is virtually identical at 15,548 (a -0.2% delta), whereas the Pro 560X’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti, scores 15,063 (a 0.1% delta). In practical terms, these are equivalent performers overall, but the R9 M380 offers a slight edge in aggregate scores.

The verdict: pick the R9 M380 for OpenCL-heavy workflows or if you want a marginal average performance lead. Pick the Pro 560X for Metal-accelerated applications or if you prefer the newer architecture with a lower power envelope. Neither card is a clear winner; it is a workload-specific decision.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M380 has a higher average benchmark score of 15,521 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 560X’s 15,082.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the geekbench_opencl test?

A: The R9 M380 wins decisively with a score of 12,565 versus 9,663 for the Pro 560X, representing a 30% advantage for the older card.

Q: Which GPU performs better in geekbench_metal?

A: The Pro 560X wins the geekbench_metal test with a score of 18,763, narrowly beating the R9 M380’s 18,476, a delta of -1.5% from the R9 M380’s perspective.

Q: What are the process node differences between the two chips?

A: The R9 M380 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro 560X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: How does the transistor density compare?

A: The Pro 560X has a significantly higher transistor density of 24.4M per mm², compared to 13.0M per mm² for the R9 M380.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The R9 M380 offers slightly higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s for the Pro 560X.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting a generational leap in AMD’s design philosophy. The R9 M380 is based on the GCN 2.0 architecture, using the Strato chip, while the Pro 560X employs the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 21 chip. This difference in architecture generation explains many of the performance characteristics observed in the benchmarks.

The manufacturing processes diverge sharply. The R9 M380 is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Pro 560X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process shrink allows the Pro 560X to pack 3,000 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, while the R9 M380 has only 2,080 million transistors on a larger 160 mm² die. The resulting transistor density is nearly double for the newer card: 24.4M per mm² versus 13.0M per mm².

Shader resources also favor the Pro 560X. It features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The R9 M380, by contrast, has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. This gives the Pro 560X a theoretical peak FP32 throughput of 2.056 TFLOPS, compared to 1.536 TFLOPS for the R9 M380. The Pro 560X also lists FP16 performance at 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1), while the R9 M380 does not report FP16 capabilities.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but they differ in Vulkan support. The R9 M380 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Pro 560X supports the newer Vulkan 1.3. The Pro 560X is also configured as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, whereas the R9 M380’s TDP and power connector requirements are not listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specification fields, though they share the same memory size and type. Both come with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the R9 M380 achieves 96.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 94.08 GB/s for the Pro 560X. The memory clock differs as well: the R9 M380 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Pro 560X runs at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds reveal another major difference. The R9 M380 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The Pro 560X does not list base or boost clocks, only its memory clock, making direct clock-speed comparison impossible from the available data.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Pro 560X has more shading units (1,024 vs 768), more TMUs (64 vs 48), and equal ROPs (16 vs 16). This translates to a higher pixel rate for the Pro 560X at 16.06 GPixel/s versus 16.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M380, and a much higher texture rate of 64.26 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance also favors the Pro 560X: 2.056 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The Pro 560X has a listed TDP of 75 W, a slot width of "IGP," and no power connectors. The R9 M380 does not have these fields populated. The bus interface also differs: the R9 M380 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Pro 560X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are unspecified for the R9 M380, while the Pro 560X lists "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile Mac-oriented design. Finally, the API support differs in Vulkan version, as noted earlier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results present a fascinating contrast, with each card claiming a decisive victory in one test. The most striking result is in the geekbench_opencl test, where the AMD Radeon R9 M380 scores 12,565 against the Pro 560X’s 9,663. This is a 30% advantage for the R9 M380, a massive margin that defies the newer architecture and higher theoretical FP32 throughput of the Pro 560X. This suggests that the R9 M380’s GCN 2.0 design, or its driver optimization for OpenCL, provides a significant real-world compute advantage that spec sheets do not capture.

In the geekbench_metal test, the tables turn. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 18,763, while the R9 M380 scores 18,476. This gives the Pro 560X a 1.5% lead, a much narrower margin than the OpenCL result. The Pro 560X’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture and higher shader count likely contribute to its Metal performance, but the gap is small enough that it could be attributed to driver maturity or test variance rather than a fundamental architectural superiority.

Notably, the Pro 560X also has a geekbench_vulkan score of 16,819, a test that the R9 M380 did not run. This additional benchmark point shows the Pro 560X’s Vulkan performance, though no direct comparison is possible. The R9 M380’s Vulkan support (1.2.170) is older than the Pro 560X’s (1.3), but without a head-to-head Vulkan result, the impact of this version difference remains unquantified.

Overall, the benchmark data indicates a split decision. The R9 M380 is the clear winner in OpenCL compute, while the Pro 560X takes a narrow victory in Metal graphics. The average scores, which include multiple benchmarks, slightly favor the R9 M380 (15,521 vs 15,082), but both cards sit within a tight performance band relative to their nearest rivals. The R9 M380 is 0.2% behind the GTX 1080 Ti and 1.5% ahead of the RTX 2060, while the Pro 560X is 0.1% ahead of the GTX 660 Ti and 0.6% behind the Radeon RX 7600. These deltas are all within a few percentage points, confirming that neither card offers a decisive overall performance advantage.