AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon Pro 580 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575X

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 and AMD Radeon Pro 575X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same Ellesmere chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, but they target different performance tiers within the Radeon Pro Mac lineup. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows a split decision: the Pro 580 wins two of three tests, while the Pro 575X takes a decisive victory in Metal. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close — 40,318 for the Pro 580 versus 39,116 for the Pro 575X — placing both at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs. The data reveals that the newer 575X model, released in 2019 versus 2017 for the 580, offers better performance in Apple's Metal API but falls behind in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory belongs to the AMD Radeon Pro 580 in the Vulkan test, where it scores 43,285 against the Pro 575X's 37,919 — a 14.2% advantage. This is the standout result for the Pro 580, showing a substantial lead in cross-platform graphics workloads. The gap narrows but remains significant in OpenCL, with the Pro 580 scoring 38,457 versus 34,773 for the Pro 575X, representing a 10.6% delta. Both results indicate that the Pro 580's higher compute resources translate directly into faster general-purpose GPU compute performance.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X counters with a dominant showing in Geekbench Metal, scoring 44,655 against the Pro 580's 39,213 — a 12.2% lead. This is particularly notable because Metal is Apple's native graphics API on macOS, making it the most relevant test for Mac users running graphics-intensive applications. The 575X's advantage in this specific workload suggests that architectural refinements or driver optimizations in the newer part benefit Metal performance disproportionately.

When comparing average scores against their nearest rivals, the two cards sit in slightly different competitive positions. The Pro 580's average of 40,318 puts it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (40,377) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870) by 1.4% and leads the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568) by 1.9%. The Pro 575X's average of 39,116 places it 1.1% ahead of both the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38,691), while sitting 1.1% behind both the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,555) and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568).

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head results are calculated from the perspective of the Pro 580, so the negative value for Metal (-12.2%) indicates the 580's deficit, while positive values for OpenCL (10.6%) and Vulkan (14.2%) show its advantages. Across all three tests, the Pro 580 wins two and the Pro 575X wins one, yet the average scores are separated by only 1,202 points — a 3.0% difference. This compression in average performance despite divergent individual test results underscores how API-specific optimizations can reshape the competitive landscape.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 is the stronger choice for OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks, with its 10.6% and 14.2% leads respectively making it the preferred option for developers, researchers, or professionals running compute-heavy applications that leverage these APIs. Its higher shading unit count (2,304 versus 2,048) and TMU count (144 versus 128) contribute to its superior texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s, and its FP32 throughput of 5.530 TFLOPS outpaces the 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS by 23.2%.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X, despite its lower raw compute specifications, emerges as the better performer in Metal — the API most commonly used by macOS applications. Its 12.2% lead in this test suggests that for typical Mac users running Metal-accelerated software, the 575X delivers better real-world performance despite having fewer shading units and lower clock rates. The 575X also draws less power (150 W versus 185 W), which can be relevant in thermally constrained mobile systems.

For users prioritizing compute performance in cross-platform environments, the Pro 580's dual wins in OpenCL and Vulkan make it the data-backed choice. For those whose primary workloads run through Metal, the Pro 575X's decisive victory in that API — combined with its lower power draw — makes it the more compelling option. The near-identical average scores (40,318 versus 39,116) and matching 82nd percentile rankings indicate that neither card offers a blanket superiority; the correct selection depends entirely on the target application programming interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has an average benchmark score of 40,318, which is 1,202 points higher than the Pro 575X's average of 39,116.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins the Metal test with a score of 44,655 against the Pro 580's 39,213, giving the 575X a 12.2% advantage.

Q: What is the performance difference in Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 leads in Vulkan with a score of 43,285 versus the Pro 575X's 37,919, representing a 14.2% advantage for the Pro 580.

Q: Do both GPUs occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon Pro 580 and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X are ranked at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 delivers 5.530 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, substantially higher than the Pro 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS.

Q: How close are the two cards to their nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 is 1.9% ahead of the RTX A500 Mobile (39,568 vs. 40,318), while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X is 1.1% behind it (39,116 vs. 39,568).

Specification Differences

The most significant specification gap between the two cards lies in memory capacity. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X has only 4 GB. Despite this difference, both share the same 256-bit memory bus and identical bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s, with matching memory clocks of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective).

The compute configurations diverge notably. The Pro 580 contains 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Pro 575X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These differences translate into distinct throughput figures: the Pro 580 achieves pixel rates of 38.40 GPixel/s and texture rates of 172.8 GTexel/s, while the Pro 575X operates at 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s respectively.

Power consumption differs by 35 W, with the Pro 580 rated at 185 W and the Pro 575X at 150 W. Both cards feature a clock speed of 1100 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost for the Pro 580, while the Pro 575X's clock speeds are not listed in the data. The two cards also differ in their generation branding, with the Pro 580 belonging to the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) and the Pro 575X to the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series).

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon Pro 580 and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X are built on the Ellesmere chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share identical transistor counts of 5,700 million and die sizes of 232 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter.

Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as expected from a GCN 4.0 design. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and both are integrated into portable devices with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent" and no power connectors required. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both, and both are marked as end-of-life products.

The only architectural difference beyond the compute unit counts and memory capacity is the release timing: the Pro 580 launched on June 4, 2017, while the Pro 575X arrived on March 17, 2019. The FP16 performance mirrors FP32 for both cards at a 1:1 ratio, with the Pro 580 offering 5.530 TFLOPS and the Pro 575X offering 4.489 TFLOPS in both precision formats. The identical chip, process node, and memory subsystem characteristics confirm that these are closely related parts differentiated primarily by enabled compute resources and memory capacity rather than fundamental architectural changes.