AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs NVIDIA T600 Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded head-to-head data splits cleanly by API. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile takes the win with a score of 35,486 against the AMD Radeon Pro 575's 34,596, a margin of 2.5%. That is a narrow victory, but it is consistent with the T600's overall profile: it sits at the 77th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32,849, while the Radeon Pro 575 sits higher at the 82nd percentile with an average of 39,555.

The Geekbench Vulkan result flips decisively. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 37,878 versus the T600 Mobile's 30,211, which is a 25.4% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is the largest single delta in the head-to-head set. If your workload leans on Vulkan, the AMD part is the clear pick from these numbers.

The broader context matters too. The Pro 575's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (average score 39,568, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, delta -1.3%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318, delta -1.9%). The T600's rivals are a tier lower: the NVIDIA P104-100 (32,982, delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon RX 590 GME (32,601, delta 0.8%), and NVIDIA T550 Mobile (33,161, delta -0.9%). So the Pro 575 is competing in a higher average-score bracket, while the T600 sits in a lower one. That explains why the Pro 575's average is about 20% higher overall, even though the T600 wins the OpenCL test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile uses the TU117 chip on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The node difference is modest but real: 12 nm versus 14 nm.

Transistor counts differ. The AMD chip packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a density of 24.6 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, at 23.5 million per mm². The AMD die is physically larger and more transistor-dense, though the NVIDIA die is smaller overall.

Memory architecture is a major split. The Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T600 Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s. The AMD part has a wider bus and more bandwidth, which helps in bandwidth-heavy tasks. The T600's GDDR6 runs at a higher effective speed (12 Gbps versus 6.8 Gbps), but the narrower bus caps its total throughput.

Compute resources are also very different. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The T600 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part has more than twice the shader count and more than double the texture units, but the ROP count is identical at 32. The T600 compensates with higher clock speeds: its base is 780 MHz and boost is 1,410 MHz, while the Pro 575 lists no base or boost clock in the database.

API support differs slightly. The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which may matter for specific applications.

Power and form factor are starkly different. The Pro 575 is rated at 150 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width. The T600 is rated at 40 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width. The T600 is a far lower-power part, which makes sense for thin-and-light mobile workstations, while the Pro 575 is a heavier module that demands more cooling and power delivery.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple choice based on workload. If your applications use Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the stronger option by a wide margin, 25.4% ahead of the T600 in the recorded Geekbench Vulkan test. It also carries a higher overall average benchmark score (39,555 versus 32,849) and a higher percentile rank (82 versus 77). The Pro 575's bandwidth advantage, with 217.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s, and its much larger shader and TMU counts, support that result.

If your applications use OpenCL, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is slightly ahead, 35,486 versus 34,596, a 2.5% edge. That is a narrow win, and it comes despite the T600's lower average score across all recorded tests. The T600 also draws far less power, 40 W versus 150 W, and runs on a newer architecture with newer API support. For mobile systems where power and thermals are tight, the T600 is the more practical part.

For raw compute throughput, the Pro 575 lists 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The T600 lists 2.527 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.053 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The AMD part is stronger in FP32, while the NVIDIA part is stronger in FP16 by a meaningful margin. If your workload is FP16-heavy, the T600's 5.053 TFLOPS is the higher number.

Pick the Pro 575 for Vulkan workloads, FP32 compute, or bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Pick the T600 for OpenCL workloads, FP16 compute, or low-power mobile systems. The T600's 40 W TDP versus the Pro 575's 150 W TDP is a decisive factor for any chassis that cannot cool a full MXM module.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins by a large margin. It scores 37,878 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 30,211, a 25.4% difference.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile wins narrowly. It scores 35,486 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 34,596, a 2.5% difference.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile has 192.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD part has the higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is rated at 150 W TDP, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is rated at 40 W TDP. The T600 is a significantly lower-power part.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 lists 4.489 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile lists 2.527 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part has nearly 78% more FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 compute?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile lists 5.053 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the AMD Radeon Pro 575 lists 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The NVIDIA part is higher in FP16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two direct comparisons in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. They tell opposite stories.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 35,486 against the AMD Radeon Pro 575's 34,596. That is a delta of 2.5% in favor of NVIDIA. The absolute difference is 890 points. This is a close result, and it indicates that the T600's higher boost clock of 1,410 MHz helps it compete despite having fewer shading units (896 versus 2,048). The Pro 575's lack of a listed boost clock makes direct clock comparison impossible, but the T600's clock advantage is clear from the data.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 37,878 against the NVIDIA T600 Mobile's 30,211. That is a delta of 25.4% in favor of AMD. The absolute difference is 7,667 points. This is a dominant win. The Pro 575's larger shader count, higher bandwidth, and GCN 4.0 architecture appear to handle Vulkan much better. The T600's Turing architecture with newer Vulkan 1.4 support does not translate into a higher score here.

Looking at averages, the AMD part's average benchmark score is 39,555, which is 20.4% higher than the T600's 32,849. That average includes the Pro 575's additional Geekbench Metal score of 46,192, which the T600 does not have. Even without that Metal result, the Pro 575's Vulkan score alone (37,878) is higher than the T600's best recorded score (35,486 in OpenCL).

The wins are split one each, but the magnitudes are not equal. The T600's OpenCL win is marginal at 2.5%, while the Pro 575's Vulkan win is overwhelming at 25.4%. If you weight the benchmarks by the size of the delta, the AMD part has the stronger overall case. The T600's only real argument is power efficiency and the OpenCL edge, which is slim.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

Process and Die: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is on 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile is on 12 nm at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density is 24.6M / mm² for AMD and 23.5M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Clocks: The Pro 575 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The T600 lists a base clock of 780 MHz, a boost clock of 1,410 MHz, and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory: Both have 4 GB, but the Pro 575 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T600 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The T600 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The ROP count is identical; everything else favors AMD.

Rates: The Pro 575 has a pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s. The T600 has a pixel rate of 45.12 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 78.96 GTexel/s. The T600 has a higher pixel rate, while the Pro 575 has a much higher texture rate.

FP32 and FP16: The Pro 575 lists 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The T600 lists 2.527 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.053 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). AMD leads in FP32; NVIDIA leads in FP16.

Power and Form Factor: The Pro 575 is 150 W TDP with an MXM Module slot width and no power connectors. The T600 is 40 W TDP with an IGP slot width and no power connectors.

API Support: The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T600 has the newer DirectX feature level and Vulkan version.

Release and Status: The Pro 575 was released on 2017-06-04 and is end-of-life. The T600 was released on 2021-04-11 and is also end-of-life. The T600 lists a predecessor (Quadro Pascal-M) and a successor (Ampere-MW); the Pro 575 lists neither.