AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the clear performance winner over the AMD Radeon Pro 575, dominating both benchmark categories with decisive margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6550M scores 42,536 against the Pro 575’s 34,596, a 23% advantage. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6550M posts 50,867 versus 37,878, a 34.3% lead. The data shows a generational leap in compute efficiency and raw throughput, with the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture decisively outpacing the older GCN 4.0 design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 6550M wins both head-to-head comparisons, and the margin is substantial in each case. The OpenCL result of 42,536 versus 34,596 represents a 23% performance uplift, a significant gap that indicates the RX 6550M delivers roughly a quarter more compute performance in this API. This is not a marginal victory; it is a clear tier difference. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 50,867 versus 37,878, a 34.3% delta. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the RX 6550M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture is built to exploit it, while the Pro 575’s GCN 4.0 design is older and less efficient in this workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RX 6550M’s average benchmark score is 46,702, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, only 0.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601, also 0.2% behind). This puts the RX 6550M in a tightly contested mid-range mobile segment where it edges out competition by fractions of a percent. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043) is 1.4% behind, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972) trails by 1.6%. These are close calls, but the RX 6550M holds the top spot among its immediate peers.

The Pro 575, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 39,555, landing in the 82nd percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, a 0% delta), making them effectively tied. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116) is 1.1% behind, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063) is 1.3% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318) leads by 1.9%. This positions the Pro 575 at the lower end of its peer group, whereas the RX 6550M sits at the higher end of its own. The performance gap between the two cards is not just statistically significant; it is a full tier of separation.

The Pro 575 does have one benchmark the RX 6550M lacks: a Geekbench Metal score of 46,192. However, the RX 6550M does not have a Metal score listed, and the head-to-head comparison does not include Metal. In the two shared tests, the RX 6550M wins both outright. The 34.3% Vulkan lead is particularly telling, as it demonstrates that the RX 6550M scales better with modern rendering APIs, which are increasingly important for current and future games and compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide is stark. The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process node difference is enormous: 6 nm versus 14 nm means the RX 6550M packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The Pro 575 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 24.6 million per mm²—less than half.

This density advantage translates directly into efficiency and clock speeds. The RX 6550M runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz, a boost clock of 2840 MHz, and a game clock of 2560 MHz. The Pro 575 has no listed base, boost, or game clocks, indicating a design from a different era where clock speeds were lower and power consumption higher. The RX 6550M’s TDP is 80 W, while the Pro 575 draws 150 W. The RX 6550M achieves higher performance with nearly half the power envelope, a direct result of the 6 nm process and RDNA 2.0’s efficiency improvements.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Pro 575 also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, offering 217.0 GB/s at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The Pro 575 has higher raw bandwidth due to its wider bus, but the RX 6550M’s GDDR6 memory operates at a much higher effective speed, and the newer architecture uses bandwidth more efficiently.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but zero ray tracing cores. Despite having double the shading units and TMUs, the Pro 575 produces lower FP32 throughput: 4.489 TFLOPS versus the RX 6550M’s 5.816 TFLOPS. The RX 6550M also delivers FP16 at 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 575 is capped at 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). Pixel rate favors the RX 6550M at 90.88 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 181.8 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s.

API support is another differentiator. The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 6550M’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, which are absent on the Pro 575. The bus interface also differs: the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Pro 575 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6550M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, while the Pro 575 is an MXM module.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS FP32, which is 29.6% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 575’s 4.489 TFLOPS. This is despite the Pro 575 having double the shading units (2,048 vs. 1,024).

Q: Does the RX 6550M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6550M has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The Pro 575 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro 575 has higher raw bandwidth at 217.0 GB/s, thanks to a 256-bit bus, compared to the RX 6550M’s 144.0 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. However, the RX 6550M uses GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective, while the Pro 575 uses GDDR5 at 6.8 Gbps effective.

Q: How does the power consumption compare?

A: The RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W, while the Pro 575 has a TDP of 150 W. The RX 6550M delivers higher benchmark scores while consuming nearly half the power.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6550M scores 50,867 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 34.3% higher than the Pro 575’s 37,878. This reflects the RX 6550M’s modern RDNA 2.0 architecture and Vulkan 1.4 support versus the Pro 575’s older GCN 4.0 and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RX 6550M is listed as Active, with a release date of January 3, 2023. The Pro 575 is End-of-life, with a release date of June 4, 2017.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The process node is 6 nm (TSMC) for the RX 6550M versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) for the Pro 575. Transistor count is 5,400 million for the RX 6550M and 5,700 million for the Pro 575, but die size is 107 mm² versus 232 mm², respectively. Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² versus 24.6M per mm².

Clock speeds are listed for the RX 6550M (base 2000 MHz, boost 2840 MHz, game 2560 MHz) while the Pro 575 has no base, boost, or game clocks listed. Memory type is GDDR6 for the RX 6550M and GDDR5 for the Pro 575, with bus widths of 64-bit and 256-bit, respectively. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), and bandwidth is 144.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 1,024 for the RX 6550M versus 2,048 for the Pro 575, and TMUs are 64 versus 128. ROPs are the same at 32. The RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores; the Pro 575 has none. Pixel rate is 90.88 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 181.8 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 5.816 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 80 W for the RX 6550M and 150 W for the Pro 575. Form factor is IGP versus MXM Module. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0), and Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.3. Production status is Active versus End-of-life, with release dates of January 3, 2023, and June 4, 2017, respectively.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the superior GPU by every measurable benchmark metric. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 23% lead in OpenCL and a 34.3% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 46,702 places it in the 85th percentile, compared to the Pro 575’s 39,555 in the 82nd percentile. The RX 6550M achieves this with half the TDP (80 W versus 150 W), a smaller die (107 mm² versus 232 mm²), and a more advanced 6 nm process.

The Pro 575’s only advantage is raw memory bandwidth (217.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s) and double the shading units and TMUs, but these do not translate into performance wins. In fact, the RX 6550M’s higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency overcome the Pro 575’s wider bus and more compute units. The RX 6550M also supports modern features like hardware ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the Pro 575 lacks entirely.

For any workload using OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 6550M is the clear choice. The Pro 575 is an end-of-life product from 2017, while the RX 6550M is active and current. The data does not support any scenario where the Pro 575 outperforms the RX 6550M in shared benchmarks. The verdict is unambiguous: the RX 6550M wins decisively.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 6550M:

• Vulkan workloads: It wins by 34.3% (50,867 vs. 37,878), making it the better choice for modern APIs and game engines that leverage Vulkan.
• OpenCL compute: It wins by 23% (42,536 vs. 34,596), indicating superior general-purpose compute performance.
• Power efficiency: With an 80 W TDP versus 150 W, it delivers higher performance with lower power draw, ideal for thin-and-light laptops.
• Modern features: Ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it suitable for current-generation gaming and rendering.
• FP16 performance: It offers 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1), double its FP32 rate, which benefits AI and machine learning workloads that use FP16.

AMD Radeon Pro 575:

• Memory bandwidth: It provides 217.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive tasks, though it does not translate into wins in the listed benchmarks.
• Raw compute unit count: With 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs, it has more parallel resources on paper, but lower clocks and older architecture negate this advantage.
• Metal API: It has a Geekbench Metal score of 46,192, the only benchmark exclusive to it, which may be relevant in macOS environments (though the RX 6550M has no Metal score listed).
• PCIe bandwidth: Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers more lanes than the RX 6550M’s PCIe 4.0 x4, but the newer PCIe 4.0 protocol on the RX 6550M compensates with higher per-lane throughput.

The RX 6550M wins in every shared benchmark and most meaningful use cases. The Pro 575’s strengths are theoretical or limited to a single exclusive API, making the RX 6550M the recommended choice for essentially all workloads.