AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M and AMD Radeon Pro 575 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The RX 5600M is a modern gaming-focused part built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the Pro 575 is an older workstation-oriented GPU based on GCN 4.0. The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap, with the RX 5600M winning all three head-to-head comparisons by substantial margins. This analysis breaks down those results, the architectural reasons behind them, and what they mean for potential use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins every single benchmark comparison, and it does so by margins that range from significant to overwhelming. The largest gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RX 5600M scores 59,589 against the Pro 575’s 34,596. That is a delta of 72.2%, meaning the newer GPU delivers nearly three-quarters more compute performance in this general-purpose workload. This result is particularly striking because OpenCL often favors compute-oriented workstation cards, yet the RX 5600M’s architectural advantages completely overwhelm the Pro 575’s older design.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M posts 76,653 points compared to the Pro 575’s 46,192, a 65.9% advantage. Metal is Apple’s graphics API, and while both cards are AMD parts, the RX 5600M’s RDNA architecture clearly translates better to this modern interface. The smallest but still decisive win comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 5600M scores 48,843 versus 37,878, a 28.9% lead. Vulkan is a low-level API that can sometimes narrow gaps between architectures, but even here the RX 5600M maintains a comfortable edge.

Looking at the broader context, the RX 5600M’s average benchmark score of 46,601 places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 575’s average of 39,555 sits in the 82nd percentile. The RX 5600M’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A530M with an average score of 46,614 (a 0% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46,043 (1.2% behind). The Pro 575, meanwhile, trades blows with the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, 1.3% ahead). These rival comparisons show that the RX 5600M competes in a higher performance tier entirely, not just against the Pro 575 but against the broader mobile GPU landscape.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures explain the performance chasm. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. The Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0, built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. This process difference alone is massive: 7 nm versus 14 nm allows the RX 5600M to pack 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter. The Pro 575, by contrast, contains only 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, with a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 5600M crams nearly twice the transistors into a similar physical footprint.

Core counts also favor the RX 5600M. It features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Pro 575 offers 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and just 32 ROPs. The ROP deficit is particularly telling: the Pro 575 has half the pixel-processing hardware of the RX 5600M, which explains its dramatically lower pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s versus 80.96 GPixel/s. The RX 5600M also leads in texture rate at 182.2 GTexel/s compared to 140.3 GTexel/s, and in FP32 compute at 5.829 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: the RX 5600M delivers 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 575 manages only 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning the newer card has a dedicated advantage in half-precision workloads.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally as well. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but only achieves 217.0 GB/s. The RX 5600M’s memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the Pro 575 runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The newer GDDR6 standard more than compensates for the narrower bus. Interface and API support also skew modern: the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark sweep, the RX 5600M is the clear winner across every measurable workload. In Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, it outperforms the Pro 575 by margins between 28.9% and 72.2%. This suggests the RX 5600M is better suited for any task that leverages these APIs, whether that is gaming, content creation, or general GPU compute. Its higher pixel rate and texture rate make it more capable for rasterization-heavy applications, while its superior FP32 and FP16 throughput points to advantages in physics simulations, image processing, and machine learning inference workloads that rely on half-precision math.

The Pro 575, despite losing every benchmark, still has a narrow niche. Its 256-bit memory bus, while slower in aggregate bandwidth, could theoretically offer better memory efficiency in certain access patterns, though the data does not show any workload where this translates to a win. The Pro 575’s GCN architecture is older and lacks the modern feature set of RDNA, but it does support the same OpenGL 4.6 version as the RX 5600M, so legacy OpenGL applications would run on both. The Pro 575’s designation as a “Pro” part might suggest workstation certifications, but the FACT PACK provides no data on ISV certifications or driver optimizations, so any such advantage is speculative.

In terms of system integration, the RX 5600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the Pro 575 is an MXM module, also with no power connectors. Both carry a 150 W TDP, so power consumption is identical on paper. The RX 5600M’s 7 nm process likely means it achieves that 150 W budget with more headroom for sustained clocks, though the FACT PACK does not provide actual clock speeds for the Pro 575 (base and boost are null). The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz, a boost of 1265 MHz, and a game clock of 1190 MHz, giving concrete performance figures to anchor its benchmark results.

The Verdict

The data makes a straightforward case: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the superior GPU in every tested dimension. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher percentile ranking (85th versus 82nd), and posts an average benchmark score that is roughly 17.8% higher than the Pro 575 (46,601 versus 39,555). The RX 5600M’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc A530M, which scores nearly identically (46,614, 0% delta), while the Pro 575’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, 0% delta). This means the RX 5600M is not just better than the Pro 575; it sits in an entirely different performance class.

For anyone choosing between these two, the RX 5600M is the obvious pick for gaming, general compute, or any modern API workload. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory also provides more capacity than the Pro 575’s 4 GB, which matters for texture-heavy games or large datasets. The Pro 575 could only be justified if a system requires an MXM module form factor, since the RX 5600M is an IGP. But even then, the performance penalty is steep: 65.9% slower in Metal, 72.2% slower in OpenCL, and 28.9% slower in Vulkan. The Pro 575 is a relic of the GCN era, and the benchmark results show how far AMD’s architecture has advanced.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M delivers 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.66 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Q: How much faster is the RX 5600M in the most lopsided benchmark?

A: The biggest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 5600M scores 59,589 versus the Pro 575’s 34,596, a delta of 72.2%.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The RX 5600M has 288.0 GB/s from 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the Pro 575 has 217.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports newer PCIe and API versions?

A: The RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12_1, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12_0, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: Both are end-of-life. The RX 5600M was released on 2020-07-06, and the Pro 575 was released on 2017-06-04.

Q: How do their overall percentile ranks compare?

A: The RX 5600M ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 46,601, while the Pro 575 ranks in the 82nd percentile with an average score of 39,555.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 5600M | AMD Radeon Pro 575 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 80.96 GPixel/s | 35.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.2 GTexel/s | 140.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.829 TFLOPS | 4.489 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1) | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Release Date | 2020-07-06 | 2017-06-04 |