AMD Radeon Pro 570X vs AMD Radeon RX 590 GME Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME and AMD Radeon Pro 570X are both 14 nm Polaris-based graphics cards from the GCN 4.0 era, but they target very different use cases. The RX 590 GME is a desktop-oriented part with a 77th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Pro 570X is an integrated-class mobile workstation component sitting at the 76th percentile. Despite their close overall standing, benchmark results reveal a decisive performance gap, with the RX 590 GME winning both shared tests by substantial margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking disparity appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 590 GME scores 60,508 against the Pro 570X's 28,859. That is a 109.7% advantage — the desktop part more than doubles the mobile card's compute output in this API. This is not a marginal difference; it represents a fundamental capability gap between the two chips. In Vulkan workloads, the RX 590 GME's higher shading unit count (2304 vs 1792) and dramatically higher clock speeds (1420 MHz boost vs 1105 MHz boost) compound to produce roughly double the throughput.

The OpenCL results tell a similar story, though less extreme. The RX 590 GME posts 36,294 points versus 27,604 for the Pro 570X, a 31.5% lead. This narrower gap still puts the desktop card clearly ahead, but it suggests that OpenCL scaling is less sensitive to the architectural differences than Vulkan. Notably, the Pro 570X has a separate Geekbench Metal score of 40,066, which is its strongest benchmark result — higher than its OpenCL score by about 45%. The RX 590 GME has no Metal benchmark listed, so cross-platform comparisons on Apple's API are not possible from this data.

Looking at the broader context, the RX 590 GME's average benchmark score of 32,601 puts it within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (32,540) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32,456). The Pro 570X's average of 32,176 places it 0.7% behind the FirePro S10000 (32,388) and 0.9% behind the RX 7900 GRE. Both cards occupy a similar performance tier overall, but the head-to-head results show the RX 590 GME consistently outperforms its sibling in compute tasks. The wins tally confirms this: the RX 590 GME wins 2 benchmarks, the Pro 570X wins 0.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 590 GME leads with an average benchmark score of 32,601, compared to 32,176 for the Pro 570X. That is a difference of about 425 points, or roughly 1.3%.

Q: How much faster is the RX 590 GME in Vulkan compute?

A: The RX 590 GME scores 60,508 in Geekbench Vulkan against 28,859 for the Pro 570X, a 109.7% advantage. This means the desktop card delivers more than double the Vulkan performance.

Q: Does the Pro 570X have any benchmark where it wins?

A: In the head-to-head tests available (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the Pro 570X does not win either. However, it does have a Geekbench Metal score of 40,066, which is not compared directly against the RX 590 GME in this data.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 590 GME comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 570X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus but with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth due to lower memory clocks (2000 MHz vs 1695 MHz effective).

Q: How do their thermal and power profiles differ?

A: The RX 590 GME has a 175 W TDP and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector with a 450 W suggested PSU. The Pro 570X has a lower 150 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 590 GME achieves 45.44 GPixel/s compared to 35.36 GPixel/s for the Pro 570X. Both cards have 32 ROPs, so the difference comes entirely from the RX 590 GME's higher clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 590 GME wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 6.543 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 3.960 TFLOPS for the Pro 570X represents a 65% advantage in theoretical peak compute. This translates directly into the benchmark results: 31.5% faster in OpenCL and 109.7% faster in Vulkan. The desktop card also wins on memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB) and bandwidth (256.0 GB/s vs 217.0 GB/s), making it the better choice for texture-heavy workloads or large dataset processing. Its higher texture rate of 204.5 GTexel/s versus 123.8 GTexel/s further cements its position for graphics-intensive tasks.

The Pro 570X's wins are more subtle. It has a lower TDP (150 W vs 175 W), which matters in thermally constrained environments. Its IGP form factor with no power connectors means it can be integrated into portable devices without discrete power wiring — a significant advantage for mobile workstations where the RX 590 GME's dual-slot, 241 mm length and 8-pin connector are impractical. The Pro 570X also holds a strong Metal score of 40,066, which suggests it may be better optimized for Apple ecosystem workloads, though no direct comparison with the RX 590 GME exists in this data.

For users with specific API requirements, the choice is clear. If Vulkan performance is critical, the RX 590 GME is the only rational option. If Metal compatibility is required, the Pro 570X has a validated score while the RX 590 GME has none listed, making the Pro card the safer bet for macOS environments.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same 14 nm process node, GlobalFoundries foundry, 5,700 million transistors, and 232 mm² die size, but diverge significantly in their execution resources. The RX 590 GME packs 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Pro 570X has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The desktop card therefore has 28.6% more shading units and 28.6% more TMUs.

Clock speeds amplify this gap. The RX 590 GME runs at 1257 MHz base and 1420 MHz boost, versus 1000 MHz base and 1105 MHz boost for the Pro 570X. That is a 28.5% higher boost clock, which when combined with the additional shading units produces the large compute advantage seen in benchmarks. Memory clocks differ as well: the RX 590 GME operates at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) while the Pro 570X runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), resulting in 256.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The physical specifications are almost opposites. The RX 590 GME is a dual-slot, 241 mm (9.5-inch) card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, drawing 175 W TDP. The Pro 570X is an IGP with no power connectors, no dimensions listed, and a 150 W TDP. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces, but the RX 590 GME offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs while the Pro 570X's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on GCN 4.0 architecture, which is a key similarity. The RX 590 GME uses the Polaris 20 chip while the Pro 570X uses Ellesmere, but both are 14 nm parts from GlobalFoundries with identical transistor counts (5,700 million) and die sizes (232 mm²). The transistor density is also identical at 24.6M / mm², confirming they are essentially the same silicon with different configurations.

The generations differ in naming: the RX 590 GME belongs to the "Polaris (RX 500)" generation, while the Pro 570X is part of the "Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series)" generation. This distinction reflects their intended markets — desktop gaming versus Apple Mac Pro integration. The production status for both is listed as end-of-life, but the RX 590 GME has a release date of March 8, 2020, while the Pro 570X launched on March 17, 2019, nearly a year earlier.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as expected for GCN 4.0 parts. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, with identical FP16 capability at 1:1 ratio to FP32. The architectural differences are therefore limited to resource allocation (shading units, TMUs) and clock speeds, not fundamental design changes. The RX 590 GME lists a predecessor of Arctic Islands and successor of Vega, while the Pro 570X has no predecessor or successor listed, suggesting it is an isolated product in its lineage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for performance: the RX 590 GME is the superior card in every head-to-head comparison available. With a 31.5% lead in OpenCL and a 109.7% lead in Vulkan, it offers more than double the compute throughput in the latter API. Its 8 GB memory versus 4 GB, higher bandwidth, and greater shading unit count make it the obvious choice for anyone building a desktop system where power draw and physical size are not constraints.

The Pro 570X is the pick only when its unique form factor is required. As an IGP with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP, it fits into portable Mac devices where the RX 590 GME's dual-slot design and 8-pin connector are impossible. Its Metal benchmark of 40,066 also indicates strong Apple-ecosystem performance, though no direct comparison to the RX 590 GME exists. For users working exclusively in macOS with Metal-optimized applications, the Pro 570X is the only listed option.

The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story. Both cards sit near the 76th-77th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are in the upper quarter of available hardware. The RX 590 GME's average score of 32,601 edges out the Pro 570X's 32,176 by 1.3%, which is within the noise of many workloads. But the head-to-head deltas — 31.5% and 109.7% — are far beyond noise. These are structural advantages that persist across all tested scenarios.

For a PC builder, the choice is simple: if you can physically install the RX 590 GME, it is the better card by every measurable metric in this data. The Pro 570X exists for a different purpose — compact, low-power integration in Apple hardware where its 4 GB memory and reduced compute are acceptable trade-offs. The benchmark results confirm that the desktop part dominates, and the Pro 570X's only real advantage is its portability profile, which is a form-factor benefit rather than a performance one.