AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT is in a different performance class entirely. Across the three shared benchmark tests, it wins all three with deltas ranging from 283.2% to 442.5%. The data indicates the RX 6900 XT is for users who need maximum frame throughput and compute throughput in a desktop workstation or high-end gaming rig, while the Radeon Pro 575 serves a legacy mobile or compact workstation role where a modest 150 W TDP and MXM form factor are the primary constraints. The RX 6900 XT sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 50,951, while the Pro 575 sits at the 82nd percentile with an average score of 39,555. The performance gap is so large that the Pro 575 should only be considered when its physical footprint and power envelope are non-negotiable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two full architecture generations and a different process node. The RX 6900 XT uses the Navi 21 chip on RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 26,800 million transistors onto a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm². In contrast, the Radeon Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. It holds 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6 million per mm². The RX 6900 XT's die is more than twice the area and holds nearly five times the transistors.

Compute resources differ drastically. The RX 6900 XT features 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 128 render output units, and 80 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The RX 6900 XT also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 46.08 TFLOPS FP16 versus 23.04 TFLOPS FP32. The Pro 575 runs FP16 at 1:1, meaning its 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 is also its FP16 ceiling.

Memory subsystems reflect the generational leap. The RX 6900 XT carries 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth and memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The RX 6900 XT has more than double the bandwidth and four times the capacity.

Feature support also diverges. The RX 6900 XT 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 6900 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16 while the Pro 575 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Physical differences are stark: the RX 6900 XT is a triple-slot card requiring two 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 575 is an MXM Module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The RX 6900 XT measures 267 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 50 mm wide, while the Pro 575 has no listed dimensions, reflecting its portable-device-dependent design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records three overlapping benchmark tests between these two GPUs, and the RX 6900 XT dominates each one. The largest margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6900 XT scores 187,673 against the Pro 575's 34,596. That is a 442.5% lead, meaning the RX 6900 XT delivers roughly 5.4 times the OpenCL compute throughput. This is the single biggest win in the entire comparison and reflects the combined effect of more shading units, higher clocks, and faster memory.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6900 XT scores 148,525 versus 37,878 for the Pro 575, a 292.1% delta. The RX 6900 XT is about 3.9 times faster in Vulkan workloads. This test benefits from the newer architecture's geometry processing and memory bandwidth, though the gap is slightly smaller than OpenCL, suggesting the Pro 575's GCN architecture handles some Vulkan tasks relatively better than raw compute.

The closest margin is Geekbench Metal, where the RX 6900 XT scores 177,021 against 46,192 for the Pro 575. That is a 283.2% delta, still a massive lead of roughly 3.8 times. Metal is the API most relevant to the Pro 575's target market (Radeon Pro Mac series), yet even there, the RX 6900 XT's newer architecture and far higher resource counts produce a commanding advantage.

The RX 6900 XT also has a much broader benchmark footprint in the database. It has recorded scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (4,079), Passmark DirectX 10 (167), DirectX 11 (279), DirectX 12 (113), DirectX 9 (268), G2D (1,055), G3D (26,732), and GPU Compute (14,547). The Pro 575 has only the three Geekbench scores. The RX 6900 XT's average benchmark score of 50,951 compares to 39,555 for the Pro 575, a relative advantage of about 28.8%. However, this average includes the RX 6900 XT's additional tests, some of which are low-scoring legacy DirectX tests, so the average understates the true performance gap seen in the head-to-head tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT has an average benchmark score of 50,951, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 has an average of 39,555.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 575 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro 575 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The RX 6900 XT has 80 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The RX 6900 XT provides 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The Pro 575 provides 217.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6900 XT leads by 442.5%. The RX 6900 XT scores 187,673 versus 34,596 for the Pro 575.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density?

A: The RX 6900 XT has a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm² on a 7 nm process. The Pro 575 has 24.6 million per mm² on a 14 nm process.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes. The database lists both the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and the AMD Radeon Pro 575 as end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6900 XT wins every measurable category in this comparison. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks: Geekbench Metal by 283.2%, Geekbench OpenCL by 442.5%, and Geekbench Vulkan by 292.1%. It wins on memory capacity (16 GB vs 4 GB), memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs 217.0 GB/s), shading units (5,120 vs 2,048), texture units (320 vs 128), ROPs (128 vs 32), FP32 throughput (23.04 TFLOPS vs 4.489 TFLOPS), and pixel rate (288.0 GPixel/s vs 35.07 GPixel/s). It also wins on API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate versus DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3.

The RX 6900 XT is the clear choice for any workload that stresses raw compute, high-resolution texturing, or modern graphics features. Its 80 ray tracing cores make it suitable for ray-traced workloads, something the Pro 575 cannot do at all. Its 16 GB framebuffer allows large datasets or high-resolution textures to reside on the card, while the Pro 575's 4 GB will bottleneck on such tasks. The RX 6900 XT's 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly 5.1 times the Pro 575's 4.489 TFLOPS, which translates directly to faster simulation, rendering, and compute workloads.

The Pro 575's only advantages are physical and power-related. It has a 150 W TDP versus 300 W for the RX 6900 XT. It is an MXM Module with no power connectors, meaning it can fit in portable or compact workstation chassis where a triple-slot, 267 mm card with two 8-pin connectors cannot. The Pro 575 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which is older but still widely compatible. Its release date of June 2017 also makes it a much older product, and it has no listed successor or predecessor in the database, indicating it was a niche part for the Radeon Pro Mac 500 Series.

In terms of percentile ranking, the RX 6900 XT sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 575 sits at the 82nd percentile. This is notable because the percentile gap is small (4 points) relative to the massive benchmark deltas. This suggests the Pro 575, despite its age, still holds up reasonably well against the broader GPU population, likely because its GCN architecture remains competitive in certain compute or compatibility scenarios. However, within this direct comparison, the RX 6900 XT is categorically superior on every measured performance metric.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize each card. The RX 6900 XT's closest competitors are the NVIDIA CMP 50HX (average score 51,790, 1.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50,001, 1.9% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957, 2% behind), and the Intel Arc A550M (49,737, 2.4% behind). The Pro 575's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, 0% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116, 1.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, 1.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318, 1.9% ahead). The Pro 575 essentially trades blows with other mobile and workstation parts, while the RX 6900 XT competes at a much higher performance tier.

For a user selecting between these two, the decision is straightforward. The RX 6900 XT is for desktop systems with adequate power delivery, cooling, and physical space. The Pro 575 is for legacy Mac Pro or portable workstation upgrades where the MXM form factor and 150 W TDP are hard requirements. No benchmark in the database suggests any scenario where the Pro 575 outperforms the RX 6900 XT.