AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 7800M universally faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 570?

A: Yes, in the recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The RX 7800M wins both shared tests, with a 77.1% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL and a 74.8% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan. The Pro 570 does not win a single comparative benchmark.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU, and how do they relate to their closest rivals?

A: The Pro 570 has an average benchmark score of 33207 across its three tests, placing it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 7800M averages 27883 across ten diverse tests, placing it in the 73rd percentile. The Pro 570's average is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, while the RX 7800M's average is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20.

Q: How large is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 7800M offers 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is three times the 4 GB of GDDR5 found on the Pro 570. The RX 7800M also has a wider 192-bit memory interface and nearly double the bandwidth at 432.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU draws less power, and what does that imply for system design?

A: The Pro 570 has a lower TDP at 150 W compared to the RX 7800M's 180 W. Both are listed as integrated graphics packages (IGP) with no power connectors, meaning they are designed for mobile or all-in-one systems rather than desktop builds with removable power supplies.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 570 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The Pro 570 is marked as end-of-life, with a release date in 2017. The RX 7800M is marked as active, with a release date in 2024 and a predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation: the RX 7800M is the choice for anyone needing current-generation compute and graphics throughput, while the Pro 570 is only relevant for legacy Mac-oriented workflows where its older architecture and lower power draw are acceptable.

For raw performance, the RX 7800M is decisively ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 120778 against the Pro 570's 27702, a 77.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 126668 against 31974, a 74.8% lead. These are not marginal differences; the newer card delivers roughly four times the compute result in these tests. The RX 7800M also benefits from a much larger 12 GB frame buffer, which is essential for modern game assets or large compute datasets.

The Pro 570's only practical advantage lies in its 150 W TDP, which is 30 W lower than the RX 7800M's 180 W. For a thermally constrained laptop chassis or a legacy Mac Pro module, that lower power target could be the deciding factor. However, the Pro 570 is end-of-life, uses PCIe 3.0, and has a 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer that will bottleneck any serious workload today.

The benchmark averages tell a nuanced story. The Pro 570's average score of 33207 is higher than the RX 7800M's 27883, but this is misleading. The Pro 570's average comes from only three Geekbench tests, while the RX 7800M's average includes ten tests spanning DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, and 3DMark Steel Nomad. The RX 7800M's lower average reflects the inclusion of synthetic DirectX 9 and 10 tests where modern architectures do not excel, not a fundamental performance deficit. In the two tests they share, the RX 7800M is far ahead.

The recommendation is straightforward. If you are building or upgrading a system for gaming, content creation, or GPU compute in 2025, the RX 7800M is the only sensible option. If you are maintaining a specific 2017-era Mac environment that requires the Pro 570's exact feature set and power profile, then the older card remains a functional choice, but it should not be considered for new projects.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite consists of two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 7800M wins both, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M scores 120778, while the Pro 570 scores 27702. The delta percentage is 77.1% in favor of the RX 7800M. This test exercises general-purpose compute across the GPU's shader units, and the RX 7800M's 3840 shading units at a boost clock of 2335 MHz simply overwhelm the Pro 570's 1792 shading units at 1105 MHz. The RX 7800M also has 240 texture mapping units versus 112, and 96 render output units versus 32, which explains why its texture rate (560.4 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (224.2 GPixel/s) are multiples of the Pro 570's figures (123.8 GTexel/s and 35.36 GPixel/s).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7800M scores 126668 against the Pro 570's 31974, a 74.8% lead. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from modern hardware scheduling and dedicated ray tracing cores. The RX 7800M has 60 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Pro 570 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The API support difference alone does not account for the full performance gap, but the hardware capabilities behind it do.

The Pro 570's best showing is its Geekbench Metal score of 39945. This test is not shared with the RX 7800M, so it cannot be compared directly. However, it is notable that the Pro 570's Metal score is higher than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, suggesting that Apple's Metal API is particularly well-optimized for this GCN 4.0 architecture. The RX 7800M has no recorded Metal benchmark, which aligns with its positioning as a Windows-focused mobile part.

The RX 7800M's additional benchmarks show a wide range of results. Its Passmark G3D score is 17613, its Passmark GPU Compute score is 9342, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2994. The DirectX 9 and 10 scores are low (174 and 99 respectively), which is typical for modern GPUs that prioritize newer APIs. The DirectX 11 score of 176 and DirectX 12 score of 89 are also low in absolute terms, but these Passmark tests are not directly comparable to the Geekbench results.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification, reflecting a seven-year gap in their release dates.

The Pro 570 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the RX 7800M uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The RX 7800M packs 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The Pro 570 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, with a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 7800M's transistor density is more than three times higher, which enables its significantly higher compute throughput.

Clock speeds diverge widely. The Pro 570 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1105 MHz. The RX 7800M has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2145 MHz, and a boost clock of 2335 MHz. The RX 7800M's boost clock is more than double the Pro 570's, and it sustains a higher game clock than the Pro 570's maximum boost.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The Pro 570 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s. The RX 7800M has less bus width but compensates with faster memory (18 Gbps effective versus 6.8 Gbps effective), resulting in roughly double the bandwidth.

Compute resources are also starkly different. The Pro 570 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 7800M has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RX 7800M also has 60 ray tracing cores, which the Pro 570 lacks entirely.

The bus interface differs: the Pro 570 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 7800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. This doubles the available bandwidth between the GPU and the host system, which matters for compute workloads that stream data.

Both cards are listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Pro 570 has a TDP of 150 W, and the RX 7800M has a TDP of 180 W.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between GCN 4.0 and RDNA 3.0 is fundamental, not incremental.

The Pro 570 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, which is a unified shader design that dates back to AMD's 2016-era graphics IP. GCN 4.0 was designed for asynchronous compute and raw throughput but lacks dedicated hardware for ray tracing or variable-rate shading. Its FP32 compute is rated at 3.960 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is the same 3.960 TFLOPS (1:1), meaning it does not gain a throughput advantage from half-precision math.

The RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, which is AMD's modern gaming-focused design. RDNA 3.0 introduces a chiplet-like layout for some models, but Navi 32 is a monolithic design. It has 60 dedicated ray tracing cores, which accelerate real-time ray-traced lighting effects. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes features like mesh shaders and sampler feedback. Its FP32 compute is rated at 35.87 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is also 35.87 TFLOPS (1:1), so it does not gain a half-precision advantage either, but the absolute throughput is nearly nine times higher than the Pro 570.

The process node difference matters for efficiency. The RX 7800M's 5 nm TSMC process allows higher clock speeds at lower voltage compared to the Pro 570's 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. This is why the RX 7800M can boost to 2335 MHz while drawing only 30 W more than the Pro 570.

The RX 7800M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 570 supports Vulkan 1.3. This newer API revision includes features like dynamic rendering and improved memory management. The RX 7800M also supports PCIe 4.0, which doubles the transfer rate versus PCIe 3.0.

The transistor count difference is the most telling architectural metric. The RX 7800M has 28,100 million transistors, nearly five times the Pro 570's 5,700 million. This allows for more complex scheduling logic, larger caches, and the dedicated ray tracing hardware that GCN 4.0 simply does not have.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7800M wins in every shared benchmark, and its advantages extend to any workload that leverages modern APIs, large memory pools, or ray tracing.

For gaming, the RX 7800M is the clear choice. Its 12 GB frame buffer is sufficient for high-resolution textures and modern game engines, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support ensures compatibility with the latest titles. The 60 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the Pro 570 cannot do at all. The RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than enough for 1440p or 4K gaming in most scenarios, and its 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth prevents bottlenecks in texture-heavy scenes.

For compute workloads, the RX 7800M's 3840 shading units and 560.4 GTexel/s texture rate make it suitable for machine learning inference, video encoding, and scientific simulations. Its Vulkan 1.4 support and PCIe 4.0 interface allow efficient data transfer and modern command processing. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 9342 reflects strong general-purpose performance.

The Pro 570's wins are limited to specific legacy scenarios. Its 150 W TDP is 30 W lower than the RX 7800M, which is critical for thin-and-light laptops or systems with strict thermal budgets. Its Geekbench Metal score of 39945 is the best result in its own benchmark suite, indicating that macOS environments with Metal optimization can extract respectable performance from this older architecture. For a 2017-era Mac Pro or a custom Hackintosh with specific driver requirements, the Pro 570 might be the only compatible option.

The Pro 570's 4 GB memory is a severe limitation for modern workloads. Even light gaming at 1080p can exceed 4 GB with high-quality textures, and compute tasks like training small neural networks will quickly exhaust the frame buffer. The 217.0 GB/s bandwidth is also a bottleneck for any data-intensive operation.

In short, the RX 7800M wins all performance comparisons and is the appropriate choice for any new system build. The Pro 570 wins only on power efficiency and legacy compatibility, and even then, its lower power draw comes with a massive performance penalty. The database records show 2 wins for the RX 7800M and 0 wins for the Pro 570 in shared tests, which is an accurate summary of their relative capabilities.