AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs AMD Radeon R9 370X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 and the AMD Radeon R9 370X represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data in the database shows a clear generational gap, but the specifics of where and how that gap appears tell a more interesting story than a simple "newer is faster" summary. The Pro 5700 is built for professional compute workloads in a Mac ecosystem, while the R9 370X was a mainstream desktop part from the mid-2010s. By examining the recorded benchmark results, architectural choices, and specification differences, we can understand exactly what each card excels at and where the older card still holds its ground.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are overwhelmingly one-sided, but the magnitude of the wins varies significantly across different test suites. The most striking result comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 scores 51,289 points against the R9 370X's 9,018 points. That is a delta of 468.7%, meaning the Pro 5700 delivers nearly five times the Vulkan performance of the older card. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete overhaul of compute capability under modern graphics APIs.

The Geekbench Metal test shows a similar pattern, though the gap is slightly narrower. The Pro 5700 scores 60,126 points, while the R9 370X manages 12,676 points. The delta here is 374.3%, which still represents a massive advantage for the newer card. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and given that the Pro 5700 is listed under the "Radeon Pro Mac" generation, this result aligns with its intended use case in Mac systems. The R9 370X, with its older GCN 1.0 architecture, was never designed for Metal, which was introduced later, but it still runs the test at a basic level.

The smallest head-to-head win for the Pro 5700 comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the Pro 5700 scores 52,787 points against the R9 370X's 25,893 points, for a delta of 103.9%. While still more than double, this is notably less dramatic than the Vulkan or Metal results. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute standard, and the R9 370X's GCN architecture was actually quite competent at OpenCL for its time. The database shows that the older card's OpenCL score is its strongest relative result, suggesting that GCN 1.0 had solid raw compute throughput, even if it lacked the modern API optimizations.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Pro 5700 sits at 18,189 points, while the R9 370X averages 15,862 points. Interestingly, the Pro 5700's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159 points, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (18,093 points, delta 0.5%). This places the Pro 5700 in the upper mid-range of modern GPUs, despite its professional focus. The R9 370X, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15,852 points, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15,679 points, delta 1.2%). The R9 370X is only 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti in average score, which is a surprisingly strong showing for a card from 2015, though the RTX 3060 Ti is a much more modern part.

The wins tally is 3 for the Pro 5700 and 0 for the R9 370X across the three head-to-head tests. No test in the database shows the older card winning. However, the percentile rankings tell a slightly different story. The Pro 5700 sits in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 370X sits in the 58th percentile. That is a narrow gap of just 4 percentile points, which suggests that while the Pro 5700 is clearly faster in absolute terms, the R9 370X still outperforms a significant portion of the GPU landscape, particularly older or lower-end parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 has an average benchmark score of 18,189 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 370X averages 15,862 points. The Pro 5700 is ahead by roughly 2,300 points, which represents a solid generational improvement.

Q: How much faster is the Pro 5700 in the Vulkan test?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Pro 5700 scores 51,289 points versus the R9 370X's 9,018 points. The delta is 468.7%, meaning the Pro 5700 is nearly five times faster in this specific workload.

Q: Does the R9 370X win any benchmark against the Pro 5700?

A: No. Across the three head-to-head tests in the database (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), the Pro 5700 wins all three. The R9 370X has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro 5700 ranks in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 370X ranks in the 58th percentile. The difference is only 4 percentage points, indicating that both cards are above average but not top-tier.

Q: Which card has a closer rival in the database?

A: The Pro 5700's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile, with a delta of 0.2%. The R9 370X's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7700, with a delta of 0.1%. Both cards have extremely close competitors, though the rival names differ significantly in age and architecture.

Q: How does the OpenCL gap compare to the Metal or Vulkan gaps?

A: The OpenCL delta is 103.9%, which is the smallest gap of the three tests. The Metal delta is 374.3%, and the Vulkan delta is 468.7%. The Pro 5700's advantage is least pronounced in OpenCL, where the R9 370X's older GCN architecture still performs relatively well.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The Pro 5700 uses the Navi 10 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the R9 370X uses the Trinidad chip based on GCN 1.0. These are completely different design philosophies. RDNA 1.0 was designed from the ground up for modern compute and gaming workloads, with a focus on higher instruction-level parallelism and more efficient execution. GCN 1.0, on the other hand, was AMD's first iteration of their Graphics Core Next architecture, which prioritized raw compute throughput over latency reduction.

The process node difference is stark. The Pro 5700 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the R9 370X uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This is a massive jump in manufacturing technology. The 7 nm node allows for significantly higher transistor density, which is reflected in the numbers: the Pro 5700 packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a density of 41.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 370X has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, for a density of just 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Pro 5700 achieves more than three times the transistor density, which enables its higher clock speeds and more complex compute units.

The shading unit count also differs substantially. The Pro 5700 has 2,304 shading units, while the R9 370X has 1,280. Texture mapping units (TMUs) are 144 on the Pro 5700 versus 80 on the R9 370X. Raster operation units (ROPs) are 64 versus 32. These raw counts explain much of the performance gap, but the architectural efficiency matters too. RDNA 1.0 can execute more instructions per clock per unit than GCN 1.0, which is why the Pro 5700's clock speed advantage (1350 MHz boost versus 1030 MHz boost) translates into even larger performance deltas than the core counts alone would suggest.

The Pro 5700 also supports a wider range of modern APIs. It lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 370X lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan version difference is notable, as the newer API version on the Pro 5700 allows for better driver optimizations and access to newer features. The DirectX feature level difference (12_1 versus 11_1) also matters for certain modern games and compute workloads, though the Pro 5700's "No outputs" display configuration suggests it is not meant for gaming use.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are vastly different. The Pro 5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The bus width is identical, but the memory type and speed make a huge difference. The Pro 5700's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the R9 370X runs at 1400 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective speed. This more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which is critical for compute workloads that frequently access large datasets.

The power characteristics are also notably different. The Pro 5700 has a TDP of 130 W and is listed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no display outputs. This suggests it is a mobile or embedded part, likely soldered into a Mac system. The R9 370X, by contrast, has a TDP of 180 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and is a dual-slot card. The R9 370X measures 221 mm in length and 111 mm in height, making it a standard desktop card. The Pro 5700 has no listed dimensions, reinforcing its integrated nature.

The suggested PSU also differs: the Pro 5700 recommends a 300 W supply, while the R9 370X recommends 450 W. This is counterintuitive given that the R9 370X has a higher TDP, but the Pro 5700's lower power draw is a direct benefit of the 7 nm process. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 on the Pro 5700 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the R9 370X, which doubles the theoretical bandwidth between the GPU and the system.

The R9 370X has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, which the database records, but the Pro 5700 has no launch MSRP listed. The release dates confirm the generational gap: the Pro 5700 launched on August 3, 2020, while the R9 370X launched on August 26, 2015. Both are end-of-life products, but they come from very different periods. The R9 370X's predecessor is listed as "Volcanic Islands" and its successor as "Arctic Islands," while the Pro 5700 has no predecessor or successor listed, indicating it was a standalone prosumer part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded scores. It is particularly dominant in Vulkan and Metal workloads, where its modern architecture and newer API support give it a massive edge. The 468.7% delta in Vulkan and 374.3% delta in Metal suggest that any workload leveraging these APIs will see a transformative performance uplift on the Pro 5700. For compute-heavy tasks like machine learning inference, scientific simulation, or video rendering that utilize OpenCL, the Pro 5700 still wins, but the 103.9% delta shows that the older card is not completely obsolete in this area.

The R9 370X, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, still has a niche. Its 58th percentile ranking means it outperforms a large portion of the GPU market, especially older or lower-end cards. For legacy DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 workloads, which the Pro 5700 does not have benchmark scores for, the R9 370X may still be a functional choice, though the database does not record such tests for the Pro 5700. The R9 370X also has actual display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), meaning it can drive monitors directly, while the Pro 5700 has no outputs and requires a system with integrated display capabilities.

The Pro 5700's strengths are clear: it has more memory (8 GB versus 2 GB), more bandwidth (384 GB/s versus 179.2 GB/s), higher pixel rate (86.40 GPixel/s versus 32.96 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (194.4 GTexel/s versus 82.40 GTexel/s), and more than double the FP32 throughput (6.221 TFLOPS versus 2.637 TFLOPS). It also supports FP16 compute at 12.44 TFLOPS, which the R9 370X does not list at all. For any modern professional workload, the Pro 5700 is the clear choice.

The Verdict

The data makes one thing clear: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is a vastly more capable GPU than the AMD Radeon R9 370X across every measured dimension. The 7 nm process, RDNA 1.0 architecture, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and modern API support give it a decisive advantage in all three head-to-head tests. If you are choosing between these two for any compute or graphics workload that uses Metal, Vulkan, or OpenCL, the Pro 5700 is the only sensible pick. Its 62nd percentile ranking places it in the mid-to-upper range of all GPUs, and its average score of 18,189 points puts it on par with modern mid-range discrete GPUs like the RTX 3060 Mobile.

The R9 370X, however, is not a useless relic. Its 58th percentile ranking and average score of 15,862 points mean it still outperforms many GPUs in the database, and its OpenCL performance is surprisingly competitive given its age. For a system that requires a physical card with display outputs, a dual-slot form factor, and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, the R9 370X remains a functional option, particularly for older DirectX titles or basic OpenCL compute. But the Pro 5700's lack of display outputs and integrated design make it a different class of product, one intended for embedded or Mac-specific use.

The verdict is straightforward: the Pro 5700 wins decisively on performance, efficiency, and modern feature support. The R9 370X wins only in the sense that it is a physical, installable desktop card with outputs, and even then, its performance ceiling is far lower. For anyone building a modern system, the Pro 5700 is the data-backed choice. For legacy systems or projects that need a working card with display connectivity, the R9 370X still has a place, but it is a place defined by its limitations, not its strengths. The database shows a clear generational leap, and the Pro 5700 is on the right side of it.