AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro 580 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575

These two AMD workstation GPUs, both built on the same Ellesmere chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, ship in the same 2017 Radeon Pro Mac generation. Yet their benchmark profiles reveal distinct personalities: the Pro 580 wins two of three head-to-head tests, while the Pro 575 counters with a commanding Metal score. The data suggests these are not simple tiered siblings, but differently tuned solutions for different compute environments.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 averages 40318 across all benchmarks, placing it 1.9% ahead of the Pro 575's 39555 average. Both cards sit at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How do they compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The Pro 575 wins decisively, scoring 46192 versus the Pro 580's 39213 — a 15.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test the Pro 575 wins.

Q: What about OpenCL workloads?

A: The Pro 580 takes OpenCL by a solid margin, scoring 38457 versus 34596, a delta of 11.2%. The Pro 575's OpenCL score trails its own Metal result by roughly 25%.

Q: Are there differences in memory capacity?

A: Yes. The Pro 580 carries 8 GB of GDDR5, while the Pro 575 has 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus with identical 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do they share the same process node and transistor count?

A: Both use GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. Transistor density is identical at 24.6M per mm².

Q: Which card is closer to the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile in average score?

A: The Pro 575 matches the RTX A500 Mobile exactly at 0% delta (39555 vs 39568). The Pro 580 sits 1.9% above that same rival.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Ellesmere chip, GCN 4.0 architecture, and the same 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The fundamental building blocks are common, but the Pro 580 enables more of them. It carries 2304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units, versus 2048 shaders and 128 TMUs on the Pro 575. Both retain 32 ROPs.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Pro 580 lists a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz. The Pro 575's clocks are not specified in the data — only its memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) matches the Pro 580 exactly. This absence suggests the Pro 575 may rely on variable or lower sustained clocks, which aligns with its reduced 150 W TDP versus the Pro 580's 185 W.

Memory architecture splits them further. The Pro 580 pairs its 8 GB GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the Pro 575 uses the same bus width but only 4 GB. Bandwidth is identical at 217.0 GB/s because the memory clock and bus width match. The Pro 575's half-capacity frame buffer could limit large dataset workloads, despite equal throughput.

Form factors differ too. The Pro 580 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the Pro 575 ships as an MXM module, also with no external power connectors. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro 575's 15.1% Metal victory positions it as the stronger choice for Apple-centric Metal-accelerated workflows. Its 46192 Metal score outshines its own OpenCL (34596) and Vulkan (37878) results by 33.5% and 22.0% respectively, suggesting Metal is its native strength. This makes it the pick for Metal-based rendering, image processing, or compute tasks on macOS.

The Pro 580 wins OpenCL by 11.2% (38457 vs 34596) and Vulkan by 14.3% (43285 vs 37878). Its Vulkan score is its best across all three APIs, surpassing its Metal result by 10.4%. This points to OpenCL and Vulkan environments as its territory — cross-platform compute, Vulkan game engines, or OpenCL-based scientific workloads. The 8 GB memory also gives it headroom for larger buffers.

The split is clean: Metal favors the Pro 575, while OpenCL and Vulkan favor the Pro 580. Average scores marginally favor the Pro 580 (40318 vs 39555), but the per-API differences are large enough to override that aggregate.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro 580 | AMD Radeon Pro 575 |

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

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps) |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 38.40 GPixel/s | 35.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 172.8 GTexel/s | 140.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.530 TFLOPS | 4.489 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1) | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 185 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

Only the fields above differ. Transistors, die size, process node, foundry, architecture, bus interface, display outputs, and API support (DirectX 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3) are identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three Geekbench tests tell a story of specialization. In Metal, the Pro 575 crushes the Pro 580 by 15.1% — a 6979-point gap (46192 vs 39213). This is the largest delta of any test, and it flips the expected hierarchy. The Pro 575's Metal dominance likely stems from its tuned clock behavior or driver optimizations, despite having fewer shaders and lower theoretical throughput.

OpenCL inverts the result. The Pro 580 scores 38457, beating the Pro 575's 34596 by 11.2% (3861 points). Vulkan shows an even wider margin of 14.3%, with the Pro 580 at 43285 versus 37878 — a 5407-point advantage. Notably, the Pro 580's Vulkan score exceeds its Metal score by 10.4%, while the Pro 575's Vulkan trails its Metal by 18.0%. Each card clearly has a preferred API.

Comparing across tests, the Pro 575's best result (46192 Metal) is 6.7% higher than the Pro 580's best (43285 Vulkan). Yet the Pro 580's worst result (38457 OpenCL) still beats the Pro 575's worst (34596 OpenCL) by 11.2%. The Pro 575 is a one-trick performer; the Pro 580 is more consistent.

Rival context reinforces the split. The Pro 580 sits 0.1% below the GeForce RTX 5070 (40377) and 0.6% above the Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40063). The Pro 575 matches the RTX A500 Mobile (39568) exactly and sits 1.1% above the Radeon Pro 575X (39116). The Pro 580's nearest rivals cluster tighter, while the Pro 575's spread is wider.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 580 if your workloads lean on OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 11.2% OpenCL and 14.3% Vulkan advantages are decisive, and its 8 GB memory doubles the Pro 575's capacity without sacrificing bandwidth. The higher 185 W TDP and 5.530 TFLOPS FP32 throughput support sustained compute loads. Its average score of 40318 also edges out the Pro 575 by 1.9%.

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 575 if Metal performance is your primary criterion. The 15.1% Metal lead (46192 vs 39213) is the single largest margin in this comparison, and the card achieves it while drawing 35 W less power (150 W vs 185 W). Its MXM form factor may also suit modular systems better than the Pro 580's IGP design. The 4 GB memory and 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 are the trade-offs.

For mixed-API environments, the Pro 580's broader wins make it the safer default. For Metal-only pipelines, the Pro 575's specialization wins outright. The data does not crown a universal victor — it identifies two differently tuned tools for different jobs.