AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and AMD Radeon Pro 575 are two end-of-life GPUs from AMD, built on different GCN generations. The data shows the RX Vega 64 achieves an average benchmark score of 39879, while the Pro 575 scores 39703, a difference of 0.4% per the nearest-rival listing. Both cards sit at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs, but their architectural and specification gaps are substantial, and the only direct head-to-head benchmark favors the RX Vega 64 by a wide margin.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the RX Vega 64 is the clear performance leader in every measured category. It wins the sole head-to-head test — Geekbench Metal — with a score of 78088 against the Pro 575's 46172, a delta of 69.1%. Its average benchmark score of 39879 also edges out the Pro 575's 39703, though the difference is small (0.4% per the nearest-rival data). The RX Vega 64 also carries a much higher raw compute ceiling: 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.489 TFLOPS, and 25.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) versus 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1). For any workload that can leverage these resources — rendering, compute, or high-resolution gaming — the RX Vega 64 is the only sensible pick from this comparison.

The Pro 575, however, wins on power and form factor. Its TDP of 150 W is less than half of the RX Vega 64's 295 W, and it is built as an MXM module with no external power connectors, making it suitable for portable or compact systems where the dual-slot, 280 mm, 2x 8-pin RX Vega 64 cannot fit. If the application is a Mac Pro or a mobile workstation with an MXM slot, and the workload is modest (the Pro 575's FP32 is only 4.489 TFLOPS), the Pro 575 may be the only physically compatible option. But the data does not show any performance scenario where the Pro 575 wins; it is strictly a power and space play.

Architecture Differences

The RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, while the Pro 575 uses Ellesmere with GCN 4.0. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but the transistor counts differ dramatically: the Vega 10 packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die (transistor density 25.3M / mm²), whereas Ellesmere has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die (density 24.6M / mm²). The Vega 64's larger die houses 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to the Pro 575's 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 98.94 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 395.8 GTexel/s for the Vega 64, versus 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s for the Pro 575.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divide. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s. The Vega 64's memory clock is 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective), while the Pro 575's memory runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The Vega 64 also supports DirectX 12_1, whereas the Pro 575 is limited to DirectX 12_0; both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. The Vega 64's base clock is 1247 MHz with a boost of 1546 MHz; the Pro 575 has no base or boost clock listed in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench Metal. The RX Vega 64 scores 78088, while the Pro 575 scores 46172 — a delta of 69.1% in favor of the Vega 64. This is a decisive margin, reflecting the Vega 64's 2x shading units, 2x ROPs, and more than double the memory bandwidth. The Pro 575 also has its own Geekbench OpenCL score of 34732 and Vulkan score of 38204, but the RX Vega 64 has no corresponding scores in those tests, so no cross-architecture comparison can be made. The data's win tally is 1-0 for the RX Vega 64. Even in the aggregate, the Vega 64's average score of 39879 is slightly above the Pro 575's 39703, but that difference is negligible (0.4%) and likely within measurement noise; the Metal test is where the real gap emerges.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification that matters. The RX Vega 64 has a base clock of 1247 MHz and a boost of 1546 MHz; the Pro 575 lists no base or boost clock. Memory: 8 GB HBM2 at 483.8 GB/s versus 4 GB GDDR5 at 217.0 GB/s, with different bus widths (2048-bit vs 256-bit) and effective speeds (1890 Mbps vs 6.8 Gbps). Shading units: 4096 vs 2048. TMUs: 256 vs 128. ROPs: 64 vs 32. Pixel rate: 98.94 GPixel/s vs 35.07 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 395.8 GTexel/s vs 140.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 12.66 TFLOPS vs 4.489 TFLOPS. FP16: 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: 295 W vs 150 W. Slot width: dual-slot vs MXM module. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs none. Suggested PSU: 600 W for the Vega 64, none listed for the Pro 575. Display outputs: the Vega 64 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a; the Pro 575 is "Portable Device Dependent." Dimensions: the Vega 64 is 280 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm; the Pro 575 has no listed dimensions. Release dates: the Vega 64 launched on 2017-08-06, the Pro 575 on 2017-06-04. The Vega 64 has a listed predecessor (Polaris) and successor (Navi); the Pro 575 has neither. The Vega 64 had a launch MSRP of 499 USD; the Pro 575 has no launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RX Vega 64 has 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth from its 8 GB HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, while the Pro 575 offers 217.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the Pro 575 support DirectX 12_1?

A: No. The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12_0, while the RX Vega 64 supports DirectX 12_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RX Vega 64 has a TDP of 295 W and requires a 600 W power supply and two 8-pin connectors. The Pro 575 has a TDP of 150 W and no external power connectors, being an MXM module.

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench Metal benchmark?

A: The RX Vega 64 scores 78088, which is 69.1% higher than the Pro 575's 46172.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life in the data. The RX Vega 64 was released on 2017-08-06, and the Pro 575 on 2017-06-04.

Q: What is the FP16 performance of each card?

A: The RX Vega 64 delivers 25.33 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

The RX Vega 64 wins every performance benchmark where data exists. It is 69.1% faster in Geekbench Metal, has 2.8x the FP32 throughput (12.66 vs 4.489 TFLOPS), and more than double the memory bandwidth (483.8 vs 217.0 GB/s). It also has a larger frame buffer (8 GB vs 4 GB) and a higher pixel rate (98.94 vs 35.07 GPixel/s). For any task that stresses the GPU — 3D rendering, compute, or high-resolution gaming — the RX Vega 64 is the definitive choice.

The Pro 575 wins in power efficiency and physical adaptability. Its 150 W TDP allows operation without auxiliary power connectors, and its MXM form factor is designed for portable or blade systems where the RX Vega 64's dual-slot, 280 mm length and 2x 8-pin requirement are impossible. The Pro 575 also has no listed dimensions or display outputs, but its "Portable Device Dependent" output suggests it is meant for integrated displays or docking solutions. If the system requires a low-power, compact GPU and the workload is light, the Pro 575 is the only viable option from this pair. However, the data shows no scenario where the Pro 575 outperforms the RX Vega 64 in raw compute or graphics performance.