AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro 580X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 and AMD Radeon Pro 580X are both GCN 4.0 parts built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, but they target different segments of the Mac ecosystem. The 575 is a mobile MXM module from the 500 Series, while the 580X is an integrated-class IGP from the 500X Series with a higher power envelope. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the 575 dominates in Metal, while the 580X counters with wins in OpenCL and Vulkan. Their average benchmark scores are close, at 39,555 for the 575 and 38,706 for the 580X, placing both in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. This analysis breaks down where each card wins based strictly on the provided specifications and benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has a higher average benchmark score of 39,555 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 580X's 38,706. This puts the 575 slightly ahead by about 2.2% in aggregate performance across the three Geekbench tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Radeon Pro 580X offers double the memory capacity with 8 GB of GDDR5 compared to the 575's 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the 580X has a slightly higher bandwidth of 218.9 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s for the 575, a difference of less than 1%.

Q: What are the physical and power differences between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP, while the Radeon Pro 580X is an IGP with a 185 W TDP. The 580X also uses an Apple MPX bus interface and has 2x HDMI 2.0b display outputs, whereas the 575's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins decisively in Geekbench Metal, scoring 46,192 against the 580X's 39,577. This represents a 16.7% advantage for the 575, its only benchmark win in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Which GPU performs better in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580X wins both of these tests. It scores 36,426 in OpenCL (5% ahead of the 575's 34,596) and 40,115 in Vulkan (5.6% ahead of the 575's 37,878).

Q: How do the two cards' nearest rivals compare in average score?

A: For the 575, the closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39,568 (0% delta), followed by the AMD Radeon Pro 575X at 39,116 (1.1% delta). For the 580X, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is nearest at 38,691 (0% delta), with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at 38,349 (0.9% delta) close behind.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results reveal a clear split in workload preferences. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the stronger choice for Metal-based applications, where it delivers a substantial 16.7% performance advantage over the 580X. This is its standout victory, and given the macOS ecosystem's emphasis on Metal, this could be significant for graphics-intensive tasks that leverage Apple's API. The 575's Metal score of 46,192 is not only much higher than the 580X's 39,577 but also boosts its average benchmark score above its rival's, despite losing the other two tests.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro 580X wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan. Its OpenCL score of 36,426 is 5% higher than the 575's 34,596, and its Vulkan score of 40,115 is 5.6% higher than the 575's 37,878. These wins suggest that the 580X has a more balanced compute profile outside of Metal, potentially making it better suited for cross-platform workloads or applications that rely on these open standards. The 580X also benefits from having 8 GB of memory, which is double the 575's 4 GB, though the benchmark data does not directly reflect memory capacity impacts.

In terms of architectural resources, the 580X holds a clear theoretical advantage. It has 2,304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units, compared to the 575's 2,048 and 128, respectively. This translates to a higher peak FP32 throughput of 5.530 TFLOPS for the 580X versus 4.489 TFLOPS for the 575. However, the 575's superior Metal performance indicates that real-world API-level optimization can outweigh raw compute specifications, at least in that specific test.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture: GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share the same Ellesmere chip, which contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². This means the core architectural design is identical, and differences in performance come from configuration and clock speeds rather than fundamental design changes.

The key architectural divergence lies in their execution resources. The Radeon Pro 580X has a larger configuration with 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs, while the 575 has 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs. This 12.5% increase in shading units and TMUs for the 580X directly contributes to its higher theoretical pixel rate of 38.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s, compared to the 575's 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ as well. The 575 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The 580X has explicit base and boost clocks of 1100 MHz and 1200 MHz, respectively, with memory at 1710 MHz (also 6.8 Gbps effective). These higher clocks, combined with more execution units, give the 580X a 23.2% advantage in FP32 performance (5.530 TFLOPS vs 4.489 TFLOPS). Both cards support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning they do not have separate half-precision paths.

The memory subsystems are architecturally similar but differ in capacity. Both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the 580X has 8 GB while the 575 has 4 GB. Bandwidth is nearly identical, with the 580X at 218.9 GB/s and the 575 at 217.0 GB/s. The 580X also has a higher TDP of 185 W versus the 575's 150 W, reflecting its higher clock and core configuration, though this is a power specification rather than an architectural feature.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification areas. The most obvious is memory capacity: the 580X has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the 575 has only 4 GB. Memory bandwidth is slightly higher on the 580X at 218.9 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s, with memory clocks of 1710 MHz and 1695 MHz, respectively. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Compute resources differ notably. The 580X has 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs, while the 575 has 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs. This leads to different peak rates: the 580X achieves 38.40 GPixel/s and 172.8 GTexel/s, while the 575 achieves 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.530 TFLOPS for the 580X and 4.489 TFLOPS for the 575.

Clock specifications also differ. The 575 has no base or boost clock listed, while the 580X has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. Power consumption is higher for the 580X at 185 W, compared to the 575's 150 W. The cards also have different form factors and interfaces: the 575 is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 580X is an IGP with an Apple MPX bus interface and 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs. The 575's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Both cards share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. They also have the same production status (End-of-life) and belong to the same 500 Series family, with the 575 in the 500 series and the 580X in the 500X series. Their release dates differ, with the 575 launching in June 2017 and the 580X in March 2019.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic difference in the benchmark results is in Geekbench Metal, where the AMD Radeon Pro 575 achieves a score of 46,192 versus the 580X's 39,577. This is a 16.7% advantage for the 575, which is a substantial margin in GPU benchmarks. Interestingly, this win comes despite the 575 having fewer shading units and lower clock speeds. The data suggests that the 575's Metal implementation is significantly more efficient, or that the 580X's driver or hardware configuration has a weakness in this API. This single result is enough to push the 575's average score above the 580X's, despite losing the other two tests.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the tables turn. The 580X scores 36,426, which is 5% higher than the 575's 34,596. This aligns more closely with the theoretical compute advantage of the 580X, which has 12.5% more shading units and a 23.2% higher FP32 peak. However, the actual performance delta is smaller than the theoretical peak would suggest, indicating that OpenCL workloads may not fully utilize the 580X's additional resources. The 580X also wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 40,115, a 5.6% improvement over the 575's 37,878.

The overall win count favors the 580X, which takes 2 out of 3 benchmarks, but the magnitude of the 575's Metal win is larger than either of the 580X's victories. The 16.7% Metal delta is more than three times the size of the 580X's OpenCL advantage and nearly three times its Vulkan advantage. This means that in a mixed workload environment, the choice between the two cards depends heavily on which APIs the applications use. For Metal-centric tasks, the 575 is clearly superior; for OpenCL or Vulkan, the 580X has a more modest but consistent edge. The average benchmark scores reflect this trade-off, with the 575 at 39,555 and the 580X at 38,706, a difference of about 2.2% in favor of the 575.