AMD Radeon Pro 570X vs AMD Radeon RX 560 XT Comparison

The benchmark data positions the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT as the clear performance leader over the AMD Radeon Pro 570X, winning both shared tests by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 560 XT scores 31,387 against 27,604 for the Pro 570X, a 13.7% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 560 XT posts 36,879 versus 28,859, translating to a 27.8% lead. The Pro 570X’s only benchmark result not shared by the RX 560 XT is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 40,066, but that test cannot be compared directly since the RX 560 XT has no Metal entry in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 560 XT dominates the direct comparison, winning two out of two shared tests. Its OpenCL score of 31,387 places it 13.7% above the Pro 570X’s 27,604. This is not a marginal win; the delta is large enough to classify the RX 560 XT as a meaningfully faster compute device in OpenCL workloads. The Vulkan result is even more decisive: 36,879 versus 28,859, a 27.8% margin. That is a massive performance gap, suggesting the RX 560 XT’s higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth translate strongly into graphics API performance.

Looking at the broader context, the RX 560 XT’s average benchmark score is 34,133, which sits in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154 (only 0.1% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34,207 (0.2% higher), meaning the RX 560 XT is essentially on par with those professional cards in this average metric. The Pro 570X, by contrast, has an average score of 32,176, placing it in the 76th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32,388 (0.7% higher), indicating the Pro 570X sits just below that older workstation card. The RX 560 XT’s average score is 6.1% higher than the Pro 570X’s, which aligns with the head-to-head OpenCL and Vulkan results where the RX 560 XT wins by double-digit percentages.

The Vulkan 27.8% win is the single biggest margin in this comparison. It suggests that for applications leveraging Vulkan, the RX 560 XT is in a different performance class entirely. The OpenCL 13.7% win is also substantial, but less extreme. The Pro 570X has no Vulkan score that rivals the RX 560 XT; its 28,859 is closer to the RX 560 XT’s OpenCL score of 31,387 than to its Vulkan score of 36,879. This indicates the RX 560 XT’s Vulkan implementation is particularly strong relative to its own OpenCL performance, while the Pro 570X shows less variance between the two APIs.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same silicon foundation: the Ellesmere chip, built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Transistor count is identical at 5,700 million, and the die size is the same at 232 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm² for both. The core configurations match exactly: 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, consistent with their GCN 4.0 design.

The differences emerge in clock speeds. The RX 560 XT has a base clock of 1074 MHz and a boost clock of 1226 MHz, while the Pro 570X runs at 1000 MHz base and 1105 MHz boost. That is a 7.4% higher base clock and 11.0% higher boost clock for the RX 560 XT. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 560 XT runs GDDR5 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Pro 570X runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). This yields a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s for the RX 560 XT versus 217.0 GB/s for the Pro 570X, a 3.2% difference. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

The clock differences cascade into all computed rates. Pixel rate is 39.23 GPixel/s for the RX 560 XT versus 35.36 GPixel/s for the Pro 570X, an 11.0% advantage. Texture rate is 137.3 GTexel/s versus 123.8 GTexel/s, a 10.9% lead. FP32 compute is 4.394 TFLOPS versus 3.960 TFLOPS, an 11.0% advantage. FP16 is identical to FP32 on both cards (1:1 ratio). The RX 560 XT’s higher clocks across the board explain its benchmark wins.

Form factor and power delivery differ significantly. The RX 560 XT is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Pro 570X is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, designed for portable devices. Both have a 150 W TDP, but the Pro 570X’s IGP design means it draws power from the system rather than a dedicated connector. Display outputs also differ: the RX 560 XT has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro 570X is listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT has an average benchmark score of 34,133, which is 6.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 570X’s average of 32,176. The RX 560 XT sits in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 570X sits in the 76th percentile.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 560 XT scores 36,879 against the Pro 570X’s 28,859, giving the RX 560 XT a 27.8% advantage. This is the largest margin in any shared test.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. However, the RX 560 XT runs its memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 570X runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) for 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: Both cards have a TDP of 150 W. The RX 560 XT requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 570X has no power connectors and is an IGP.

Q: Which card has higher boost clock?

A: The RX 560 XT has a boost clock of 1226 MHz, which is 11.0% higher than the Pro 570X’s boost clock of 1105 MHz. The base clocks are 1074 MHz and 1000 MHz respectively.

Q: Are the architectures identical?

A: Both use the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. They have identical shading units (1,792), TMUs (112), and ROPs (32). The differences are purely in clock speeds and form factor.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT is the faster GPU. It wins both shared benchmarks by 13.7% and 27.8%, has a higher average score (34,133 versus 32,176), and sits at a higher percentile (79 versus 76). Every architectural metric that matters — pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, memory bandwidth — favors the RX 560 XT due to its higher clocks. The RX 560 XT’s 1226 MHz boost clock versus 1105 MHz on the Pro 570X is the primary driver, yielding 4.394 TFLOPS versus 3.960 TFLOPS.

The Pro 570X’s only unique benchmark result is Geekbench Metal at 40,066, but this cannot be compared to the RX 560 XT since that card has no Metal score in the data. In every comparable metric, the Pro 570X trails. The Pro 570X does have a lower power draw in the sense that it requires no dedicated power connector and is an IGP, making it suitable for portable devices, but its performance ceiling is lower. The RX 560 XT is a dual-slot card needing a 6-pin connector, but that form factor enables its superior performance.

For users prioritizing raw compute and graphics performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the RX 560 XT is the clear choice. The Pro 570X only makes sense for systems that require an IGP form factor with no external power connections, accepting a 13.7% to 27.8% performance penalty. The RX 560 XT also edges out its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, by only 0.1% in average score, suggesting it competes well beyond its direct comparison here. The Pro 570X, meanwhile, sits 0.7% below the AMD FirePro S10000, indicating it is closer to older workstation parts than to modern performers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 560 XT | AMD Radeon Pro 570X |

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

| Base Clock | 1074 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1226 MHz | 1105 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 39.23 GPixel/s | 35.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 137.3 GTexel/s | 123.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 4.394 TFLOPS | 3.960 TFLOPS |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not specified |

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

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) length | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2019-03-12 | 2019-03-17 |

| Generation | Polaris (RX 500) | Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) |

Where Each One Wins

The RX 560 XT wins in every measurable performance category. It is 13.7% faster in OpenCL, 27.8% faster in Vulkan, and has higher pixel rate (39.23 versus 35.36 GPixel/s), texture rate (137.3 versus 123.8 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (4.394 versus 3.960 TFLOPS). This makes it the preferred card for any application that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, whether for compute tasks, gaming, or GPU-accelerated workloads. Its 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth also gives it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.

The Pro 570X wins in form factor and integration. As an IGP with no power connectors, it is designed for portable devices where a dual-slot card with a 6-pin connector cannot fit. It also has a Metal benchmark score of 40,066, which is higher than any score the RX 560 XT has in the data (though the RX 560 XT has no Metal score to compare against). For macOS systems that rely on Metal, the Pro 570X may have a functional advantage, but this cannot be verified from the shared data. The Pro 570X’s release date is five days later than the RX 560 XT, but both are end-of-life products.

The RX 560 XT’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (0.1% lower) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (0.2% lower), meaning it competes with those professional cards on average score. The Pro 570X’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro S10000 (0.7% higher), putting it in a lower performance tier. For any workload where performance is the priority, the RX 560 XT is the unequivocal choice. The Pro 570X is only viable when the IGP form factor is mandatory, and even then, users accept a significant performance deficit.