AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro Duo Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro Duo

The AMD Radeon Pro Duo is the faster card in the only directly comparable benchmark, but the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the more efficient and architecturally modern option. The Pro Duo wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 35,860 points against the Pro 575’s 34,596, a 3.5% margin, but it does so with a 350 W TDP versus 150 W, a 28 nm process versus 14 nm, and a dual-GPU design that complicates software scaling. The Pro 575 sits at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro Duo sits at the 80th, meaning the Pro 575 is actually ranked higher in the overall distribution despite losing the head-to-head test. Users seeking maximum raw compute in a desktop workstation should consider the Pro Duo; users needing a mobile-friendly, power-efficient solution should pick the Pro 575.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of AMD graphics technology, and the gap shows in nearly every architectural metric. The Radeon Pro 575 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Radeon Pro Duo uses the older GCN 3.0 architecture with the Capsaicin chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is significant: the Pro 575 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Pro Duo crams 8,900 million transistors into a much larger 596 mm² die, achieving only 14.9 million per square millimeter. The Pro Duo’s lower density reflects its older, less efficient manufacturing technology.

The Pro Duo is fundamentally a dual-GPU product — the Capsaicin chip name and the 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units all point to two Fiji-class GPUs on one board. The Pro 575, by contrast, is a single Ellesmere GPU with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the Pro Duo has exactly double the raw execution resources of the Pro 575 in every category. However, the Pro Duo’s dual-GPU arrangement requires CrossFire-style driver support for games and applications to use both dies, whereas the Pro 575 is a single monolithic GPU that works without such software coordination.

Memory architecture differs dramatically as well. The Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Duo uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth. The Pro Duo also runs its memory at a much lower clock (500 MHz, 1000 Mbps effective) compared to the Pro 575’s 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), yet the massive bus width gives the Pro Duo the bandwidth advantage. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, though the Pro Duo’s Vulkan support is version 1.2.170 while the Pro 575 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are close. The Radeon Pro Duo scores 35,860 points, while the Radeon Pro 575 scores 34,596 points. The Pro Duo wins by 3.5% — a meaningful but not overwhelming margin given the Pro Duo’s 2x shading unit count, 2x TMU count, and 2x ROP count. This suggests that the Pro Duo’s dual-GPU architecture is not scaling efficiently in this workload; if both GPUs were being used perfectly, the Pro Duo should theoretically outperform the Pro 575 by a much larger margin.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Pro 575 has three benchmark scores in the FACT PACK: Geekbench Metal at 46,192, Geekbench OpenCL at 34,596, and Geekbench Vulkan at 37,878. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 39,555. The Pro Duo has only one benchmark score — Geekbench OpenCL at 35,860 — giving it an average of 35,860. The Pro 575’s average is 3,695 points higher than the Pro Duo’s, which explains why the Pro 575 sits at the 82nd percentile versus the Pro Duo’s 80th.

The Pro 575’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (average score 39,568, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116, 1.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, -1.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318, -1.9% delta). The Pro 575 is essentially tied with the RTX A500 Mobile and within 2% of several other professional cards. The Pro Duo’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (35,520, 1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435, 1.2% delta), the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289, -1.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 5300M (36,529, -1.8% delta). The Pro Duo’s score is sandwiched between these cards with deltas of roughly 1-2% in either direction.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based solely on the FACT PACK:

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575 | AMD Radeon Pro Duo |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | Ellesmere | Capsaicin |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 8,900 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) | 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 128 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 35.07 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 256.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 8.192 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 350 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 3x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | (not specified) | 750 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2017-06-04 | 2016-04-25 |

| Predecessor | (none) | FirePro GCN |

| Successor | (none) | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | (none) | 1,499 USD |

| Dimensions | (not specified) | 277 mm (10.9 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Benchmark Scores | Metal: 46,192; OpenCL: 34,596; Vulkan: 37,878 | OpenCL: 35,860 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 39,555 | 35,860 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 82 | 80 |

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Duo has higher theoretical peak performance, with 8.192 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput, double the Pro 575’s 4.489 TFLOPS. The Pro Duo also has double the shading units (4096 vs 2048), TMUs (256 vs 128), and ROPs (64 vs 32).

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Duo wins with a score of 35,860 versus the Pro 575’s 34,596, a 3.5% advantage. However, the Pro 575 has a higher average benchmark score overall (39,555 vs 35,860) because it also scores well in Metal and Vulkan tests.

Q: Why does the Pro Duo have a lower percentile ranking despite having more hardware resources?

A: The Pro Duo ranks at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 575 ranks at the 82nd. The Pro Duo’s only benchmark score is 35,860 in OpenCL, while the Pro 575 averages 39,555 across three different benchmark tests, giving it a higher overall standing in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Pro 575 has a 150 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. The Pro Duo has a 350 W TDP, requires a dual-slot form factor with 3x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Pro Duo uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Duo has more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card is newer and more modern?

A: The Pro 575 was released on 2017-06-04, about 14 months after the Pro Duo’s 2016-04-25 release. The Pro 575 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process, while the Pro Duo uses GCN 3.0 on 28 nm. The Pro 575 also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus the Pro Duo’s Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Duo wins in scenarios that demand maximum theoretical throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 8.192 TFLOPS FP32 performance is nearly double the Pro 575’s 4.489 TFLOPS, and its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the Pro 575’s 217.0 GB/s. The Pro Duo also leads in pixel rate (64.00 GPixel/s vs 35.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (256.0 GTexel/s vs 140.3 GTexel/s). For workloads that can effectively utilize both GPUs on the board — such as compute-heavy rendering tasks with explicit multi-GPU support — the Pro Duo’s raw resources are the clear choice. It also wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 3.5%.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins in efficiency, portability, and software compatibility. Its 150 W TDP is less than half the Pro Duo’s 350 W, and its MXM Module form factor with no power connectors makes it deployable in laptops or compact workstations where the Pro Duo’s dual-slot, 277 mm board with 3x 8-pin connectors would never fit. The Pro 575’s 14 nm process node gives it a transistor density of 24.6M/mm² versus the Pro Duo’s 14.9M/mm², reflecting a more modern design. It also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus the Pro Duo’s 1.2.170, and it has benchmark scores in Metal (46,192) and Vulkan (37,878) that the Pro Duo cannot match — the Pro Duo has no recorded scores in those tests. The Pro 575’s 82nd percentile ranking versus the Pro Duo’s 80th further indicates that, across the full benchmark suite, the newer card is the better-rounded performer.

For a desktop workstation with a 750 W power supply, room for a long dual-slot card, and software that scales across dual GPUs, the Radeon Pro Duo offers the higher ceiling. For any mobile deployment, or for users who want a single-GPU solution with modern architecture and no CrossFire dependency, the Radeon Pro 575 is the data-backed recommendation. The Pro 575’s average benchmark score of 39,555 exceeds the Pro Duo’s 35,860 by about 10%, and its higher percentile ranking confirms that the older dual-GPU design does not translate into a better overall experience in the benchmark database.