AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 and AMD Radeon Pro 575 are both professional GPUs built on the same Ellesmere chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, yet they target different segments of the market. The WX 7100 is a full-size workstation card with a 130 W TDP and 8 GB of memory, while the Pro 575 is a mobile-oriented MXM module with a 150 W TDP and half the memory. Benchmark data shows a near-tie in average scores—40,063 for the WX 7100 versus 39,555 for the Pro 575—but the distribution of wins is heavily skewed by API, with the Pro 575 dominating Metal and the WX 7100 taking OpenCL and Vulkan. This makes the choice between them less about raw performance and more about the specific software environment and physical constraints of the system.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is the clear winner in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. In the head-to-head benchmarks, it scores 40,148 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Pro 575’s 34,596, a substantial 16% advantage. It also leads in Vulkan with a score of 39,683 versus 37,878, a 4.8% margin. These two wins give the WX 7100 a 2-1 victory in the benchmark suite, making it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan APIs, which are common in scientific simulation, rendering, and cross-platform graphics development.

The Radeon Pro 575, conversely, wins decisively in Geekbench Metal. Its score of 46,192 is 12.6% higher than the WX 7100’s 40,357. Metal is Apple’s proprietary graphics API, and this result strongly suggests the Pro 575 is optimized for macOS environments, likely as a built-to-order option for Mac Pro or iMac systems. If your workflow is centered on Metal-accelerated apps like Final Cut Pro or other Apple ecosystem software, the Pro 575 is the superior performer, despite its lower overall average score.

The overall averages tell a story of near-parity: the WX 7100’s average of 40,063 is just 1.3% ahead of the Pro 575’s 39,555. Both cards sit at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are statistically indistinguishable in aggregate performance. The real differentiator is which API your software uses, not which card is “faster” in a general sense.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die and a transistor density of 24.6M / mm². They also have identical API support, with DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The core differences lie in the execution resources and memory configuration.

The WX 7100 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The Pro 575 has fewer of everything on the compute side: 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. This translates directly into throughput figures: the WX 7100 delivers 5.728 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS in both precisions. Texture and pixel rates follow suit—the WX 7100 hits 179.0 GTexel/s and 39.78 GPixel/s, versus the Pro 575’s 140.3 GTexel/s and 35.07 GPixel/s.

Memory is another major divergence. The WX 7100 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The Pro 575 has only 4 GB of GDDR5, also on a 256-bit bus, but at a slightly lower 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), yielding 217.0 GB/s. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, keeping them as pure raster and compute workhorses.

Physically, the two are very different. The WX 7100 is a single-slot card, 241 mm long and 112 mm high, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Pro 575 is an MXM module with no power connectors, and its dimensions and display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent. This makes the Pro 575 suitable only for laptops or all-in-one systems with MXM slots, while the WX 7100 fits standard desktop workstation towers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test is the Pro 575’s strongest showing. It scores 46,192 versus the WX 7100’s 40,357, a 12.6% lead. This is a massive gap for two cards that are otherwise close in average performance, and it indicates that the Pro 575’s driver stack or hardware configuration is heavily tuned for Apple’s Metal API. If your benchmark suite is Metal-centric, this is the card to pick, no question.

The OpenCL test flips the script. The WX 7100 scores 40,148, which is 16% higher than the Pro 575’s 34,596. This is the largest delta in any benchmark here, and it aligns with the WX 7100’s higher shading unit count and clock speeds. OpenCL workloads that scale with raw compute throughput will see a clear benefit from the WX 7100, making it the superior choice for GPGPU tasks like machine learning inference or video encoding that use this API.

Vulkan is closer but still favors the WX 7100. It scores 39,683 versus 37,878, a 4.8% advantage. This suggests that while the Pro 575 can hold its own in Vulkan, the WX 7100’s extra compute resources give it a consistent edge. For cross-platform game development or Vulkan-based rendering, the WX 7100 is the safer bet.

Looking at the rival data, the WX 7100’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 580 with an average score of 40,318, just 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 at 40,377, 0.8% ahead. The Pro 575’s closest neighbor is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39,568, which is a 0% delta, meaning they are statistically identical. These rival comparisons show that both cards sit in a tight performance band, but the WX 7100 edges slightly toward the higher end of that band.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 40,063 for the WX 7100 and 39,555 for the Pro 575, a 1.3% difference. Both rank at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, so neither has a meaningful aggregate advantage.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 575 win in Metal despite lower specs?

A: The Pro 575 scores 46,192 in Geekbench Metal versus 40,357 for the WX 7100, a 12.6% lead. This is despite having fewer shading units (2,048 vs 2,304) and lower FP32 throughput (4.489 vs 5.728 TFLOPS), indicating driver or hardware optimization for Apple’s Metal API.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro WX 7100 better for compute workloads?

A: Yes, in OpenCL and Vulkan. The WX 7100 leads by 16% in OpenCL (40,148 vs 34,596) and by 4.8% in Vulkan (39,683 vs 37,878), which are common APIs for professional compute and rendering applications.

Q: Can the Radeon Pro 575 be installed in a desktop workstation?

A: No, it is an MXM module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. It is designed for laptops or all-in-one systems with MXM slots, whereas the WX 7100 is a single-slot PCIe card for standard desktop towers.

Q: Do these cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features are absent from the GCN 4.0 architecture.

Q: How much memory do they have, and does it matter?

A: The WX 7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the Pro 575 has 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s for the WX 7100 and 217.0 GB/s for the Pro 575. The extra memory on the WX 7100 is significant for larger datasets or textures.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 | AMD Radeon Pro 575 |

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

| Generation | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) | Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) |

| Base Clock | 1188 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1243 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 39.78 GPixel/s | 35.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 179.0 GTexel/s | 140.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 / FP16 | 5.728 TFLOPS | 4.489 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 130 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not listed |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 112 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2016-11-09 | 2017-06-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 799 USD | Not listed |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | Not listed |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: pick the Radeon Pro WX 7100 if your work is compute-heavy and uses OpenCL or Vulkan, or if you need more than 4 GB of memory. Its 16% OpenCL lead and 4.8% Vulkan lead are decisive, and the 8 GB frame buffer is a practical advantage for large textures or datasets. It is also the only one of the two that fits a standard desktop PCIe slot with a single-slot cooler and a 6-pin power connector, making it the straightforward upgrade for a workstation tower.

Pick the Radeon Pro 575 if you are locked into a macOS or Metal-based workflow. Its 12.6% Metal advantage is too large to ignore, and its MXM form factor means it is the only choice for portable or all-in-one systems. The lower 4 GB memory and reduced compute throughput are real drawbacks, but they don’t matter if your software never touches OpenCL or Vulkan. The 575 also carries a 150 W TDP, which is higher than the 7100’s 130 W, so thermals in a laptop chassis will be more demanding.

There is no universal winner here. The average scores are separated by just 1.3%, and both sit at the same 82nd percentile. The decision rests entirely on your software stack and hardware chassis. If you have a desktop and use cross-platform APIs, the WX 7100 is the safer, more capable choice. If you need a Mac-compatible module with Metal acceleration, the Pro 575 is the only one that fits, and it excels at exactly that task.