AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 and the AMD Radeon RX 480 share the same Ellesmere chip, the same GCN 4.0 architecture, and the same 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. Despite these similarities, the recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance gap, with the RX 480 winning all three head-to-head comparisons. This analysis steps through those results, examines where each card excels, and outlines the key specification and architecture differences that explain the outcome.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers three cross-platform tests: Geekbench Metal, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins every test, but the margin varies significantly by API.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX 480 scores 51057 against 46192 for the Radeon Pro 575. That is a delta of -9.5% from the Pro 575's perspective, meaning the RX 480 is roughly 9.5% faster in this Apple-oriented graphics API. This is the narrowest gap of the three tests, suggesting that the Pro 575's drivers or hardware configuration hold up reasonably well in Metal workloads.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a similar pattern. The RX 480 records 37998, while the Pro 575 trails at 34596, a delta of -9%. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API used across many professional and scientific applications, so this result indicates that the RX 480 has a consistent compute advantage over the Pro 575.

The largest difference appears in Geekbench Vulkan. Here the RX 480 scores 45968 versus 37878 for the Pro 575, a delta of -17.6%. That is a substantial margin and shows that the RX 480 is significantly stronger in Vulkan-based workloads. The Pro 575 loses more ground in this API than in Metal or OpenCL, which may reflect differences in how each card handles Vulkan's lower-level access to the GPU.

The overall win count is decisive: the RX 480 takes all three head-to-head tests, while the Pro 575 records zero wins. Across the three benchmarks, the average delta is roughly -12%, with the Vulkan test being the outlier at -17.6%. For context, the Pro 575's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 39555, placing it at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 480's average benchmark score is 33997, which places it at the 78th percentile. The fact that the RX 480 wins every head-to-head test yet has a lower average benchmark score is explained by the different test sets: the RX 480's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 966, a test that the Pro 575 does not have recorded. That low score drags down the RX 480's average, but in the shared Geekbench tests, the RX 480 is consistently ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 wins in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded scores. In Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, the RX 480 leads by margins ranging from 9% to 17.6%. This makes it the stronger choice for any workload that uses these APIs, which covers most modern gaming, compute, and rendering applications.

The Pro 575, by contrast, has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data. Its only advantages appear in non-benchmark areas. It has a lower power draw tied to its MXM form factor, though the TDP is identical at 150 W for both cards. The Pro 575 also has no power connectors, which reflects its mobile-oriented design, while the RX 480 requires a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 450 W power supply.

For use cases, the data points to a clear split. The RX 480 is the better performer in raw compute and graphics tasks across all three tested APIs. Its 8 GB of memory, higher clock speeds, and greater shading unit count support that result. The Pro 575, with 4 GB of memory and lower clocks, is positioned for professional mobile workstations where the MXM slot width and lack of external power connectors are more important than peak performance. The Pro 575's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for laptops and all-in-one systems where the display configuration is fixed by the manufacturer. The RX 480, by contrast, offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, making it a conventional desktop card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins with a score of 51057, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 46192, a delta of -9.5% for the Pro 575.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 480 scores 45968 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 37878 for the Pro 575, which is a delta of -17.6%. This is the largest margin in any head-to-head test.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 575 win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows zero wins for the Pro 575 and three wins for the RX 480 across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Radeon RX 480 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 480 has higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards use the same chip and architecture?

A: Yes. Both are built on the Ellesmere chip, use GCN 4.0 architecture, and are manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. Both have 5,700 million transistors and a die size of 232 mm².

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: Both cards have a 150 W TDP, but the RX 480 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. The Pro 575 has no power connectors and uses an MXM module slot, indicating a mobile design.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, transistor density, and API support. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The differences are concentrated in clocks, memory, compute units, and physical design.

The RX 480 has a base clock of 1120 MHz and a boost clock of 1266 MHz, while the Pro 575 lists no base or boost clock in the database. The RX 480's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the Pro 575's memory runs at 1695 MHz with 6.8 Gbps effective speed. This clock advantage translates directly to the memory bandwidth: the RX 480 delivers 256.0 GB/s, the Pro 575 delivers 217.0 GB/s.

The RX 480 also has more compute resources. It features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Pro 575 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The ROP count is identical, but the RX 480 has 256 more shading units and 16 more TMUs. This explains the RX 480's higher pixel rate of 40.51 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s, and its higher texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput follows the same pattern: the RX 480 reaches 5.834 TFLOPS, while the Pro 575 reaches 4.489 TFLOPS. Both cards have 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratios.

Memory capacity differs as well: the Pro 575 has 4 GB, the RX 480 has 8 GB, both GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The physical form factors are completely different. The Pro 575 is an MXM module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The RX 480 is a dual-slot card measuring 240 mm in length, 95 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a suggested 450 W power supply, and display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, the two cards are nearly identical. Both use the Ellesmere chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, which is AMD's fourth-generation Graphics Core Next design. Both are built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. There are no RT cores or tensor cores on either card, as GCN 4.0 predates dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware.

The differences lie in the implementation. The RX 480 has a higher number of active compute units, as shown by its 2304 shading units versus 2048 on the Pro 575. This is a 12.5% increase in shader count. The TMU count scales similarly, with 144 on the RX 480 versus 128 on the Pro 575. The ROP count is unchanged at 32, which means the two cards have the same pixel output capability per clock. The performance advantage comes from the combination of higher clocks and more shading units, not from any fundamental architectural change.

The generation labels differ. The Pro 575 belongs to the "Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series)" generation, while the RX 480 belongs to the "Arctic Islands (RX 400)" generation. The RX 480's predecessor is listed as "Pirate Islands" and its successor as "Polaris." The Pro 575 has no predecessor or successor listed in the database. The Pro 575 was released on 2017-06-04, while the RX 480 was released on 2016-06-28, making the RX 480 the earlier product by roughly a year. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 480 has a launch MSRP of 229 USD, while the Pro 575 has no recorded launch MSRP, consistent with its role as a mobile workstation component sold to OEMs rather than directly to consumers.

The memory subsystem also differs in speed and capacity. The RX 480's memory clock of 2000 MHz and 8 Gbps effective speed, combined with 8 GB capacity, gives it both more capacity and more bandwidth. The Pro 575's 1695 MHz memory clock and 6.8 Gbps effective speed, with 4 GB capacity, puts it at a disadvantage in memory-bound workloads. The 256-bit bus is shared, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the memory clock speed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 480 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 575 in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 480 leads by 9.5%. In OpenCL, it leads by 9%. In Vulkan, it leads by 17.6%. The RX 480 also has more memory, higher clocks, more shading units, and higher bandwidth. For any user comparing these two cards on raw performance, the RX 480 is the clear choice.

The Pro 575 is not without its place. It is an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices where space and power delivery are constrained. Its display outputs are device-dependent, and it carries no launch MSRP, indicating it was sold as part of a complete system rather than as a standalone product. The RX 480, by contrast, is a conventional dual-slot desktop card with standard display outputs and a 229 USD launch MSRP.

The benchmark results suggest that the Pro 575's lower clock speeds and reduced compute unit count cost it roughly 9% to 17.6% in performance, depending on the API. The largest gap is in Vulkan, where the RX 480's higher shader count and clock speed translate into a 17.6% advantage. The smallest gap is in OpenCL, where the difference narrows to 9%. The Pro 575's average benchmark score of 39555 and 82nd percentile ranking are respectable, but the RX 480's head-to-head wins are what matter in a direct comparison.

For gamers or general desktop users, the RX 480 is the only sensible choice based on this data. It wins every test, offers 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, and has a higher peak performance in all three APIs. For professional mobile workstation users, the Pro 575 may be the only option that fits the physical requirements of an MXM slot, but the recorded benchmarks show that it sacrifices meaningful performance compared to the desktop RX 480. The verdict from the data: the RX 480 wins on performance, while the Pro 575 wins only on form factor suitability for portable systems.