AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT in every shared test, though the margin varies dramatically by workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7900 XT scores 12,756 against the Radeon Pro 560X's 9,663, a 24.2% lead. This is a solid, if not overwhelming, win for the newer card in compute-oriented OpenCL tasks. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 7900 XT posts 71,068 versus 16,819 for the Pro 560X, a 76.3% difference. That is a massive performance gulf, indicating that the RX 7900 XT handles modern graphics APIs with far greater efficiency and raw throughput.

The Pro 560X manages a respectable showing in OpenCL, keeping the deficit under 25%. Its Geekbench Metal score of 18,763 and Vulkan score of 16,819 show a balanced, if modest, capability profile. The RX 7900 XT, by contrast, has no recorded Metal score, but its Vulkan result alone dwarfs the older card's entire benchmark portfolio. The database's average benchmark score paints a similar picture: the Pro 560X averages 15,082, while the RX 7900 XT averages 13,745. This apparent contradiction, where the newer flagship has a lower average, stems from the RX 7900 XT's inclusion of Passmark tests with very low scores (DirectX 9 at 322, DirectX 10 at 158, DirectX 11 at 340, DirectX 12 at 110), which drag down its mean despite its dominant performance in high-end workloads.

The Pro 560X's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.8% behind), and the AMD Radeon 680M (1.2% behind). This clustering shows the Pro 560X sits in a narrow performance band where tiny margins separate it from several modern and older mid-range parts. The RX 7900 XT's nearest rivals tell a different story: the AMD Radeon 660M is 0.5% ahead, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile is 0.5% ahead, the AMD Radeon RX 570X is 0.9% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is 1.5% behind. The RX 7900 XT's average score places it among a mixed group of integrated, mobile, and older desktop parts, reflecting the distorting effect of its Passmark low scores on the aggregate metric.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900 XT wins in every recorded head-to-head test, so the practical question is where the Pro 560X remains competitive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 560X's 9,663 score is within 24.2% of the RX 7900 XT's 12,756. This suggests that in compute tasks that scale poorly with raw shader count or memory bandwidth, the older card can hold its own better than in graphics-heavy workloads. For applications relying on OpenCL acceleration rather than Vulkan rendering, the Pro 560X offers a usable, if slower, alternative.

The RX 7900 XT dominates in Vulkan, a modern cross-platform graphics and compute API. Its 71,068 score versus 16,819 represents a 4.2x advantage, making it the clear choice for any workload that leverages Vulkan's low-overhead path to the GPU. The RX 7900 XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 560X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). This feature gap matters for games and applications that use ray tracing, mesh shaders, or variable rate shading, all of which require the 12_2 feature set. The RX 7900 XT's 84 ray accelerators provide dedicated hardware for ray-traced effects, a capability entirely absent from the Pro 560X.

In terms of raw throughput, the RX 7900 XT's 51.48 TFLOPS FP32 and 103.0 TFLOPS FP16 dwarf the Pro 560X's 2.056 TFLOPS in both precisions. The RX 7900 XT's FP16 rate is 2:1 relative to FP32, indicating dedicated hardware for half-precision math, while the Pro 560X runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no throughput advantage for half-precision workloads. The RX 7900 XT also leads in memory bandwidth with 800.0 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s, a 8.5x difference, and in pixel rate (459.6 GPixel/s versus 16.06 GPixel/s) and texture rate (804.4 GTexel/s versus 64.26 GTexel/s). The Pro 560X's only recorded wins are its higher percentile ranking (57th versus 55th) and its higher average benchmark score, both artifacts of benchmark selection rather than performance superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural eras. The Radeon Pro 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0, a 14 nm design from GlobalFoundries. The RX 7900 XT uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. The transistor counts reflect this generational leap: the Pro 560X packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 24.4 million transistors per mm². The RX 7900 XT integrates 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, achieving 109.1 million transistors per mm², a 4.5x density improvement.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Pro 560X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7900 XT uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s. The RX 7900 XT's memory clock runs at 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective, while the Pro 560X's memory runs at 1470 MHz with 5.9 Gbps effective. The RX 7900 XT also has a boost clock of 2394 MHz, a game clock of 2025 MHz, and a base clock of 1387 MHz; the Pro 560X has no recorded base or boost clocks.

Shader resources differ by a factor of 5.25 in shading units (5,376 versus 1,024), 5.25 in TMUs (336 versus 64), and 12 in ROPs (192 versus 16). The RX 7900 XT adds 84 ray accelerators, a feature class the Pro 560X lacks entirely. The bus interfaces also differ: the Pro 560X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RX 7900 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling both the generation and the lane count. API support shows the RX 7900 XT ahead in DirectX (12 Ultimate versus 12_0) and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.3), with both cards matching at OpenGL 4.6. The power envelope is starkly different: the Pro 560X draws 75 W with no power connectors and occupies an IGP slot, while the RX 7900 XT draws 300 W, requires 2x 8-pin connectors, a 700 W suggested PSU, and takes a dual-slot form factor measuring 276 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT scores 71,068 versus 16,819 for the Radeon Pro 560X, a 76.3% lead.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 7900 XT has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, while the Pro 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 800.0 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s.

Q: Does the Pro 560X support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro 560X has no ray accelerators, while the RX 7900 XT includes 84.

Q: What is the DirectX support on each card?

A: The RX 7900 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 560X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The RX 7900 XT has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the Pro 560X has 3,000 million on a 123 mm² die.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Pro 560X has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the RX 7900 XT has a 300 W TDP and requires 2x 8-pin connectors plus a 700 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 560X in every shared benchmark, often by enormous margins. The Vulkan gap alone, 76.3%, makes the Pro 560X unsuitable for any modern Vulkan-based workload. The RX 7900 XT also offers superior memory capacity, bandwidth, shader resources, API support, and ray tracing capability. The Pro 560X's advantages are limited to its lower power draw, compact IGP form factor, and higher percentile ranking (57th versus 55th), the latter being a statistical artifact of the benchmark set.

For anyone building a system that prioritizes raw graphics performance, the RX 7900 XT is the only rational choice from this pairing. Its 51.48 TFLOPS FP32, 103.0 TFLOPS FP16, and 800.0 GB/s memory bandwidth place it in a completely different performance class. The Pro 560X, with 2.056 TFLOPS FP32 and 94.08 GB/s bandwidth, is best suited for low-power, portable, or legacy systems where its 75 W draw and integrated form factor are assets. The RX 7900 XT's 300 W TDP, dual-slot size, and 700 W suggested PSU make it a card for full-size desktops with robust power delivery. The Pro 560X, despite its end-of-life status from 2018, remains competitive in OpenCL compute tasks, where its 9,663 score trails the RX 7900 XT by a relatively modest 24.2%. But for any workload that uses Vulkan, DirectX 12 Ultimate features, or ray tracing, the RX 7900 XT is the definitive winner. The Pro 560X was launched in 2018 with a launch MSRP of 899 USD for the RX 7900 XT in 2022, and the performance data reflects that four-year architectural gap.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 560X | AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 57,700 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 1387 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 2394 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not recorded | 2025 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1470 MHz, 5.9 Gbps effective | 2500 MHz, 20 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 94.08 GB/s | 800.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 5376 |

| TMUs | 64 | 336 |

| ROPs | 16 | 192 |

| Ray Accelerators | None | 84 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.06 GPixel/s | 459.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.26 GTexel/s | 804.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.056 TFLOPS | 51.48 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1) | 103.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2018-07-15 | 2022-11-02 |

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