AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700X Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is the decisive winner across every recorded benchmark. The data shows a clean sweep: three wins out of three head-to-head tests, with the largest margin in Geekbench Metal at 63.3% ahead of the Radeon Pro 575. The W5700X also holds a higher percentile ranking, sitting at the 87th percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro 575 sits at the 82nd percentile. The average benchmark score reinforces this gap: 54,828 for the W5700X versus 39,555 for the Pro 575, a difference that places the two cards in different performance tiers entirely.

The Pro 575 is not without merit, but its role is narrower. It remains a viable option for systems requiring an MXM Module form factor, a compact card that draws 150 W and requires no external power connectors. The W5700X, by contrast, is a Quad-slot card built around the Apple MPX bus interface, which limits its compatibility to specific Mac Pro chassis. Buyers should choose the W5700X when maximum compute throughput and the highest memory capacity are the priority. Buyers should choose the Pro 575 when physical constraints, such as an MXM slot or lower power envelope, are non-negotiable.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent two distinct generations of AMD GPU design. The Radeon Pro W5700X is built on the Navi 10 chip using the RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip with the older GCN 4.0 architecture, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This generational gap explains much of the performance difference.

Transistor counts tell the story of increasing complexity. The W5700X packs 10,300 million transistors onto a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter. The Pro 575 contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the W5700X to nearly double the transistor count while keeping the die size comparable.

The compute resources differ significantly. The W5700X features 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The ROP count is particularly notable: the W5700X has exactly double the raster output units of the Pro 575, which directly impacts pixel throughput. The pixel rate confirms this: 130.6 GPixel/s for the W5700X versus 35.07 GPixel/s for the Pro 575. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the W5700X delivering 326.4 GTexel/s against 140.3 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges. The W5700X uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, achieving 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus width, but bandwidth drops to 217.0 GB/s. The memory clock difference is stark: the W5700X runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate, while the Pro 575 runs at 1695 MHz with 6.8 Gbps effective. The W5700X offers four times the capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

API support also reflects the architectural gap. The W5700X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W5700X has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Where Each One Wins

The W5700X wins in every scenario where raw compute is the deciding factor. Its FP32 throughput of 10.44 TFLOPS more than doubles the Pro 575's 4.489 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: the W5700X reaches 20.89 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Pro 575 stays at 4.489 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Applications that leverage half-precision math, such as certain machine learning workloads or image processing pipelines, will see a substantial advantage on the W5700X.

The memory capacity difference makes the W5700X the clear choice for large datasets. 16 GB versus 4 GB means the W5700X can hold larger textures, bigger geometry buffers, and more complex scenes without spilling to system memory. The bandwidth advantage, 448.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s, further supports data-heavy workloads.

The Pro 575 wins on physical integration. It is an MXM Module with no power connectors, drawing 150 W, and uses the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. This makes it suitable for portable or compact systems where the W5700X's Quad-slot, 205 W, Apple MPX design cannot fit. The Pro 575's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating flexibility for laptop or all-in-one designs. The W5700X, by contrast, offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt outputs, which are tailored for desktop Mac Pro configurations.

The Pro 575 also has a lower power draw at 150 W versus 205 W. For systems with limited thermal headroom or smaller power supplies, this difference matters. However, the W5700X lists a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the Pro 575 has no suggested PSU field in the data, so direct power supply guidance is not available for the latter.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 75,427 in Geekbench Metal, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 46,192. This gives the W5700X a 63.3% advantage in the Metal API test.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit memory bus, but the W5700X achieves 448.0 GB/s bandwidth compared to 217.0 GB/s for the Pro 575.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The W5700X is a Quad-slot card using the Apple MPX bus interface and measures 305 mm in length. The Pro 575 is an MXM Module using PCIe 3.0 x16 and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The W5700X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W5700X has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The W5700X has an average benchmark score of 54,828, while the Pro 575 averages 39,555. The W5700X ranks at the 87th percentile among all GPUs, and the Pro 575 ranks at the 82nd percentile.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both cards are listed as end-of-life. The W5700X was released on December 10, 2019, and the Pro 575 was released on June 4, 2017.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test shows the largest gap. The W5700X scores 75,427 against the Pro 575's 46,192, a delta of 63.3%. This result is consistent with the architectural advantages: the W5700X has more shading units, double the ROPs, and a newer architecture that handles Metal workloads more efficiently. A 63.3% lead in a single API test is substantial and indicates that Metal-based applications, common in macOS environments, will see a significant performance uplift on the W5700X.

The Geekbench OpenCL test narrows the gap but still favors the W5700X. The score is 43,810 for the W5700X versus 34,596 for the Pro 575, a delta of 26.6%. OpenCL workloads tend to be more varied, and the Pro 575's GCN architecture is not without strengths in compute tasks. Still, the W5700X's higher FP32 throughput and faster memory subsystem provide a clear edge.

The Geekbench Vulkan test produces the smallest margin of the three. The W5700X scores 45,246, and the Pro 575 scores 37,878, a delta of 19.5%. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the Pro 575's older architecture handles it reasonably well, but the W5700X still maintains a nearly one-fifth performance lead. This suggests that even in scenarios where the Pro 575 is relatively strongest, the W5700X remains comfortably ahead.

Context from the nearest rivals strengthens the picture. The W5700X's average score of 54,828 places it within 1.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 and RTX 4080 SUPER, which score 54,247 and 54,209 respectively. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 1.6% and the AMD Radeon 8060S by 1.7%. This means the W5700X sits in a competitive bracket with modern high-end cards, despite being an end-of-life product. The Pro 575's average of 39,555 is statistically tied with the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39,568, with a delta of 0%. It is 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 575X and 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100. The Pro 575 competes with mid-range mobile and workstation GPUs, a different tier entirely.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the Pro 575 uses Ellesmere with GCN 4.0. The process node is 7 nm at TSMC for the W5700X versus 14 nm at GlobalFoundries for the Pro 575. Transistor counts are 10,300 million versus 5,700 million, with die sizes of 251 mm² and 232 mm² respectively.

Memory is a major differentiator. The W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective rate and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1695 MHz with 6.8 Gbps effective rate and 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Compute units differ in count and capability. The W5700X has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 130.6 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 326.4 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 10.44 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 20.89 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1).

The W5700X is a Quad-slot card with an Apple MPX bus interface and a 205 W TDP, requiring a suggested 550 W PSU. It offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt display outputs. The Pro 575 is an MXM Module with PCIe 3.0 x16, 150 W TDP, no power connectors, and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The W5700X measures 305 mm in length, while the Pro 575 has no recorded dimensions.

API support also differs: the W5700X supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are separated by roughly two and a half years, with the W5700X launching on December 10, 2019 and the Pro 575 on June 4, 2017. The W5700X has a launch MSRP of 999 USD; the Pro 575 has no recorded launch MSRP.