AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA T1000 are professional workstation graphics cards from different architectural generations, with the data showing a 1-1 split in head-to-head benchmark wins. The AMD Radeon Pro 575, based on the older GCN 4.0 architecture, holds a slight edge in Vulkan performance, while the NVIDIA T1000, based on Turing, counters with a clear OpenCL victory. The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity: the Radeon Pro 575 averages 39,555, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the T1000 averages 36,289, sitting in the 80th percentile. The T1000 leads in raw OpenCL compute, while the Radeon Pro 575 provides a more balanced overall profile with a higher average score and a 2-percentile-point advantage in the broader GPU landscape.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins in Vulkan workloads, scoring 37,878 against the NVIDIA T1000's 34,874, a decisive 8.6% advantage. This makes the Radeon Pro 575 the stronger choice for applications that leverage Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute, a common scenario in modern CAD visualization and game-engine rendering. Its higher texture rate, at 140.3 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s for the T1000, and its larger 256-bit memory bus with 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth, provide substantial raw throughput that benefits Vulkan's explicit multi-threading. The Radeon Pro 575's FP32 performance of 4.489 TFLOPS is also far ahead, nearly double the T1000's 2.500 TFLOPS, which is a strong indicator of its compute headroom.

The NVIDIA T1000 counters with an 8.2% win in the OpenCL benchmark, scoring 37,704 versus the Radeon Pro 575's 34,596. OpenCL is a staple for scientific computing, image processing, and rendering tasks, where the T1000's Turing architecture demonstrates superior efficiency. Despite having fewer shading units (896 versus 2048) and lower FP32 throughput, the T1000's 12 nm process node and newer design allow it to extract more performance per clock, as evidenced by its higher pixel rate of 44.64 GPixel/s compared to 35.07 GPixel/s for the AMD card. The T1000 also benefits from GDDR6 memory, which, despite a narrower 128-bit bus, offers a low-latency and high-frequency solution that helps in OpenCL's memory-access-heavy workloads.

Additionally, the T1000 wins on practical deployment metrics. Its 50 W TDP is a third of the Radeon Pro 575's 150 W, and it comes in a single-slot form factor with a length of 156 mm (6.1 inches) and height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), making it far easier to integrate into compact workstations. The Radeon Pro 575 uses an MXM module, which is portable-device dependent and therefore limits its compatibility to specific laptop or all-in-one chassis. The T1000 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the AMD card's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the user's connectivity options are dictated by the host device.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is generational and fundamental. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, featuring the Ellesmere chip with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA T1000 uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process, with the TU117 chip containing 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5M per mm². The newer process node in the T1000 contributes to its dramatically lower power draw and higher clock speeds.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Radeon Pro 575 packs 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, providing massive parallel throughput for raw FP32 compute. The T1000 is leaner, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the T1000's base and boost clocks are 1065 MHz and 1395 MHz respectively, while the AMD card's base and boost clocks are not listed, leaving its performance reliant on its wider architecture. The T1000 also has a significant FP16 advantage: it delivers 5.000 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the Radeon Pro 575 offers 4.489 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This means the T1000 can double its throughput on FP16 workloads, a feature absent in the AMD part.

Memory technology is another differentiator. The Radeon Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 6.8 Gbps effective. The T1000 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but its 10 Gbps effective memory clock yields 160.0 GB/s. While the AMD card has higher peak bandwidth, the T1000's GDDR6 has lower latency characteristics. API support also diverges: the T1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, giving the NVIDIA card a slight edge in feature-level compliance. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The T1000 has a suggested PSU of 250 W and requires no power connectors, while the Radeon Pro 575 also has no power connectors but carries a much higher 150 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has a higher average benchmark score of 39,555, compared to the NVIDIA T1000's 36,289, a difference of approximately 9%.

Q: In which benchmark does the NVIDIA T1000 outperform the AMD Radeon Pro 575?

A: The T1000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 37,704 against the Radeon Pro 575's 34,596, an 8.2% margin.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the AMD Radeon Pro 575?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has a memory bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s, achieved with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the NVIDIA T1000?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 is 156 mm (6.1 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall, and it is a single-slot card.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 has a higher pixel rate of 44.64 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 has a pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the transistor density of the AMD Radeon Pro 575?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has a transistor density of 24.6M per mm², based on 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575 | NVIDIA T1000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1065 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1395 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 896 |

| TMUs | 128 | 56 |

| Pixel Rate | 35.07 GPixel/s | 44.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 78.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 2.500 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) | 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.4 |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 156 mm / 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2017-06-04 | 2021-05-05 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results tell a story of complementary strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA T1000 takes a clear win with a score of 37,704 versus the AMD Radeon Pro 575's 34,596. This 8.2% delta is significant, indicating that the T1000's Turing architecture, with its FP16 capabilities and efficient scheduling, is better suited to OpenCL's heterogeneous computing model. The T1000 achieves this despite having fewer than half the shading units of the AMD card, underscoring the efficiency of its 12 nm process and higher clock speeds.

Conversely, in Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 rebounds with a score of 37,878, beating the T1000's 34,874 by a substantial 8.6%. Vulkan's low-level API rewards the Radeon Pro 575's massive 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, which can be fully utilized when the driver overhead is minimized. The AMD card's higher texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s, nearly double the T1000's 78.12 GTexel/s, is a probable factor in this win, as Vulkan often stresses texture-intensive geometry rendering.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the split. The Radeon Pro 575's average of 39,555 places it 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 575X and 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100. The T1000's average of 36,289 is 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5300M and 2.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro GV100. While the T1000's raw scores are lower, its percentile ranking of 80 versus the Radeon Pro 575's 82 shows it remains competitive in the broader market, particularly given its 50 W power envelope.

The Verdict

The choice between the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and the NVIDIA T1000 hinges on the specific workload and deployment environment. The data shows the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the better choice for Vulkan-based applications, where its 8.6% lead in that benchmark and its superior raw compute specs (4.489 TFLOPS FP32, 217.0 GB/s bandwidth) make it a powerful option for rendering and simulation tasks that scale with shading units and texture throughput. Its higher average score of 39,555 and 82nd percentile ranking suggest it is a more capable all-rounder in a purely performance-based comparison.

However, the NVIDIA T1000 is the winner for OpenCL-centric workflows and constrained physical environments. Its 8.2% OpenCL victory demonstrates architectural efficiency, and its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and 156 mm length make it vastly easier to install in standard workstations. The T1000's four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide out-of-the-box multi-monitor support, whereas the Radeon Pro 575's MXM form factor ties it to proprietary mobile hardware. For users prioritizing power efficiency, compactness, and modern API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1), the T1000 is the clear recommendation. For users who need maximum compute density and Vulkan performance and have a compatible MXM chassis, the Radeon Pro 575 remains a formidable option.