AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 480 and AMD Radeon Pro 570 share the same Ellesmere chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, but they are configured for very different roles. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the RX 480 winning every direct benchmark comparison by a substantial margin. While both cards occupy the same 78th percentile among all GPUs, their average benchmark scores diverge, with the RX 480 averaging 33,997 points against the Pro 570’s 33,207. The following analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and what these numbers mean for potential users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the RX 480 outperforms the Pro 570 across all three tested workloads, with win margins ranging from 27.8% to a commanding 43.8%. The largest gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 480 scores 45,968 against the Pro 570’s 31,974, a delta of 43.8%. This suggests the RX 480’s higher clock speeds and additional compute units provide a significant advantage in modern graphics API workloads, which often scale well with raw shader throughput.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 480 posts 37,998 points, beating the Pro 570’s 27,702 by 37.2%. This result reinforces the pattern: the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Pro 570’s 3.960 TFLOPS translates directly into a sizable compute advantage. The OpenCL benchmark is particularly relevant for general-purpose GPU workloads, and the 10,296-point gap indicates that the RX 480 handles parallel compute tasks with considerably more efficiency.

The closest contest occurs in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 480 scores 51,057 against the Pro 570’s 39,945, a 27.8% lead. Even in this Apple-centric API, where the Pro 570 might be expected to have optimized drivers given its Mac-oriented design, the RX 480 still wins decisively. The 11,112-point difference highlights that the RX 480’s hardware advantages—more shading units, higher clocks, and faster memory—overcome any potential software optimization advantages the Pro 570 might possess.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the RX 480’s average score of 33,997 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (33,951) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849). Meanwhile, it trails the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133) by 0.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154) by 0.5%. The Pro 570’s average of 33,207 puts it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile (33,170) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32,849). These rival comparisons show that both cards sit in a similar performance tier, but the RX 480 consistently edges out its professional counterpart.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same Ellesmere chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share identical transistor counts of 5,700 million and a die size of 232 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The foundational silicon is therefore identical; all performance differences stem from how AMD configured the two products.

The most significant architectural divergence is in compute resources. The RX 480 features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Pro 570 is cut down to 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs, retaining the same 32 ROPs. This represents a 22% reduction in shading units and a 22% reduction in texture units for the Pro 570. The RX 480’s higher pixel rate of 40.51 GPixel/s versus the Pro 570’s 35.36 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s versus 123.8 GTexel/s, are direct consequences of these differing configurations.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The RX 480 runs at a base of 1120 MHz with a boost of 1266 MHz, while the Pro 570 operates at 1000 MHz base and 1105 MHz boost. This 120 MHz difference at base and 161 MHz at boost compounds with the shader count disparity, explaining why the RX 480’s FP32 throughput of 5.834 TFLOPS is nearly 50% higher than the Pro 570’s 3.960 TFLOPS. Memory configuration also differs: the RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Pro 570 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) for 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 480’s faster memory and larger capacity give it a 39 GB/s bandwidth advantage.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so API compatibility is identical. The RX 480 is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 570 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, reflecting its intended use in portable devices. Both have a TDP of 150 W, but the Pro 570’s IGP form factor means it relies on the host system for power delivery.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 480 delivers 5.834 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the Pro 570’s 3.960 TFLOPS. This 1.874 TFLOPS difference is the primary driver behind the RX 480’s benchmark victories.

Q: Why does the RX 480 have a higher average benchmark score if both cards are in the same percentile?

A: The RX 480 averages 33,997 points across all benchmarks, while the Pro 570 averages 33,207. Both land in the 78th percentile of all GPUs, but the RX 480’s average is 790 points higher, reflecting its consistent advantage in every tested workload.

Q: How does memory capacity affect real-world performance?

A: The RX 480 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 versus the Pro 570’s 4 GB, with bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s. The extra capacity and 39 GB/s of additional bandwidth allow the RX 480 to handle larger textures and datasets without hitting memory bottlenecks.

Q: Are these cards suitable for the same types of systems?

A: No. The RX 480 is a dual-slot, 240 mm long card requiring a 6-pin power connector and 450 W PSU, while the Pro 570 is an IGP with no power connectors and no specified dimensions, indicating it is designed for integration into portable or pre-built systems.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: Both cards support identical APIs: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. There is no difference in software feature support between the two.

Q: What do the benchmark deltas mean for gaming?

A: In Vulkan, the RX 480 leads by 43.8%, which suggests it will provide substantially higher frame rates in games that use this API. The Metal and OpenCL gaps of 27.8% and 37.2% respectively indicate similar advantages in those workloads.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon RX 480 for anyone prioritizing raw performance. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, offers more than 40% higher texture fill rate, and provides double the memory capacity. The RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS of FP32 compute makes it the clear choice for gaming, general compute, or any workload where shader throughput matters. Its 8 GB memory buffer also future-proofs it better for modern titles that exceed 4 GB of VRAM usage.

The AMD Radeon Pro 570, while less powerful, serves a specific niche. Its IGP form factor with no power connectors means it can be deployed in systems where space and power delivery are constrained. The 150 W TDP matches the RX 480, but the Pro 570’s lack of external power requirements simplifies installation in portable devices. Its 4 GB memory and 3.960 TFLOPS are adequate for professional workloads that do not demand extreme compute, and its identical API support ensures compatibility with the same software stack.

For a desktop builder seeking maximum performance, the RX 480 is the obvious pick. It offers superior specs across every measurable category and wins every benchmark by at least 27.8%. For a system integrator needing a GPU that fits into a compact, power-simple design, the Pro 570’s IGP nature is its key selling point, despite its lower performance. The 78th percentile ranking for both cards indicates they sit in the same overall performance class, but the RX 480 consistently operates at the higher end of that class.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 480 | AMD Radeon Pro 570 |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1120 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1266 MHz | 1105 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 144 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 35.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 123.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.834 TFLOPS | 3.960 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.960 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 240 mm (9.4 inches) long | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2017-06-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | Not specified |