AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X and AMD Radeon Pro 575 are two nearly identical GPUs from the same Ellesmere chip, both built on GCN 4.0 architecture and a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Their average benchmark scores sit within 0.3% of each other, placing both at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs, yet the data reveals subtle performance shifts across different APIs. The 575X edges ahead in OpenCL while the original 575 takes the Metal crown, making the choice between them less about raw capability and more about which workload API matters most to the user.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has an average benchmark score of 39,836, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 39,703. This puts the 575X just 0.3% ahead of the 575 in the nearestRivals comparison.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins the Metal test with a score of 46,172, beating the 575X's 44,655 by a margin of 3.3%. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark.

Q: What about OpenCL performance — which card comes out on top?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X takes the OpenCL test with a score of 35,017, slightly ahead of the 575's 34,732. The delta is just 0.8%, making it a much closer contest than the Metal result.

Q: Are there any differences in the memory subsystem between the two?

A: No, both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering identical memory bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s. The memory clock is also the same at 1695 MHz, translating to 6.8 Gbps effective.

Q: Do the physical specifications differ in any meaningful way?

A: Yes, the slot width differs: the 575X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the 575 is an MXM Module. Both are portable device dependent for display outputs and have no power connectors.

Q: Which card was released earlier, and does that affect its standing?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 was released on 2019-03-17, while the 575X followed on 2019-03-17 as well. Both are end-of-life products, and the release timing does not appear to influence their benchmark standings.

Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, these two GPUs are virtually indistinguishable. Both are built on the Ellesmere chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 5,700 million, and the die size matches at 232 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all equal: 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both deliver the same pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s, texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 4.489 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is also identical at 4.489 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The key architectural differentiator lies in the physical form factor. The 575X is designated as an IGP, meaning it is integrated into the system board, whereas the 575 is an MXM Module, a removable mobile PCI Express module. This distinction does not alter the compute capabilities but does affect how each card is deployed in portable systems. Both share the same PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, API support for DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and a TDP of 150 W with no power connectors required.

The generation labels also differ slightly: the 575X belongs to the "Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series)" while the 575 is from the "Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series)". This naming suggests the 575X is the refresh model, but the underlying silicon and clock behavior, as far as the data shows, remain unchanged. The memory configuration is a perfect match — 4 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus, 217.0 GB/s bandwidth — so any performance divergence must stem from firmware, driver optimizations, or the thermal/power envelope of the host system rather than the GPU architecture itself.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a statistical dead heat between the 575X and 575, with the 575X holding a razor-thin 0.3% average score advantage. Users prioritizing Metal-based workflows should select the AMD Radeon Pro 575, as it delivers a 3.3% higher score in Geekbench Metal. Conversely, the 575X is the better pick for OpenCL workloads, where it leads by 0.8%. The choice ultimately hinges on the API ecosystem of the user's software stack.

For those in Apple's Mac ecosystem, where Metal is the native graphics API, the 575's stronger Metal showing makes it the more compelling option despite the older generation label. The 575X's IGP form factor may appeal to systems requiring integrated graphics, while the 575's MXM Module suits modular laptop designs. Given that both cards sit at the 83rd percentile and are end-of-life, neither offers a decisive generational leap; the decision should be guided by benchmark API relevance and the physical slot requirements of the target machine.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the 575X and 575 are nearly identical, with only two fields showing divergence. The slot width is the primary difference: the 575X is listed as "IGP" while the 575 is listed as "MXM Module." This reflects their intended mounting solutions — one integrated into the board, the other a removable module. The generation field also differs, with the 575X in the "Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series)" and the 575 in the "Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series)."

Every other measurable specification matches exactly: process node at 14 nm, 5,700 million transistors, 232 mm² die size, 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, 217.0 GB/s bandwidth, 150 W TDP, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and identical API support. The memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) is the same, as are the pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and FP16 figures. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed, and both are end-of-life with no successor or predecessor noted.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a split decision, with each card winning one benchmark. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 dominates in Geekbench Metal, scoring 46,172 against the 575X's 44,655. This 3.3% delta is the most significant performance gap between the two, suggesting that the 575 has a distinct advantage in Metal-optimized applications. The margin is large enough to be noticeable in real-world rendering tasks that rely heavily on this API.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the tables turn. The 575X scores 35,017, edging out the 575's 34,732 by 0.8%. While this is a much narrower victory, it indicates that the 575X may have slightly better OpenCL driver tuning or firmware behavior. The 575 also has an additional benchmark result not present for the 575X: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 38,204, which suggests the 575 has been tested more extensively across APIs, though no direct comparison is available for Vulkan between the two.

The average scores tell a similar story: the 575X averages 39,836, just 0.3% above the 575's 39,703. Both cards are bracketed by the same rivals, with the 575X sitting 0.1% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, while the 575 sits 0.4% below the RX Vega 64 and 0.1% above the RX 9070 XT. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile trails both by roughly 0.3–0.7%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the clear winner for Metal-based applications, thanks to its 3.3% higher Geekbench Metal score. This makes it the preferable choice for macOS users running Metal-native software, such as video editing suites, 3D modeling tools, or any compute workload that leverages Apple's graphics framework. The 575's additional Vulkan benchmark score of 38,204, while not directly comparable, hints at broader API validation that could translate to more consistent driver support across multiple graphics interfaces.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins the OpenCL contest, albeit by a slim 0.8% margin. OpenCL is still widely used in cross-platform compute applications, scientific simulations, and certain rendering engines, so the 575X holds a slight edge in those environments. Its IGP form factor also makes it suitable for systems where space is at a premium and a removable module is not an option.

In practical terms, the wins are workload-specific rather than generational. The 575X's higher average score (39,836 vs. 39,703) gives it a nominal overall lead, but the 575's Metal dominance is more pronounced than any of the 575X's advantages. For users who know their primary API, the choice is clear; for those who need balanced performance across both Metal and OpenCL, the 0.3% average difference is negligible, and the form factor should dictate the final decision.