AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon Pro 580X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly split picture for two GPUs that share the same Ellesmere chip, GCN 4.0 architecture, and 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Across the three Geekbench tests, the AMD Radeon Pro 575X claims one decisive victory while the AMD Radeon Pro 580X counters with two wins, yielding a 1-2 split in favor of the 580X.

The most dramatic divergence appears in Geekbench Metal, where the Radeon Pro 575X scores 44,655 against the Radeon Pro 580X's 39,577. That is a 12.8% advantage for the smaller card, a substantial margin that runs counter to the expectation that a higher-tier SKU with more shading units would dominate. The Metal test appears to favor the 575X's configuration despite its lower raw compute ceiling. The 575X's Metal score also stands as its strongest individual result across all three benchmarks, surpassing its own OpenCL and Vulkan numbers by 28.4% and 17.8%, respectively.

The Radeon Pro 580X reverses the trend in the other two APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 580X posts 36,426 versus the 575X's 34,773, a 4.5% lead. The Vulkan gap widens further: 40,115 for the 580X against 37,919 for the 575X, a 5.5% margin. Notably, the 580X's Vulkan score is its best result, exceeding its Metal score by 1.4% and its OpenCL score by 10.1%. The 575X, by contrast, sees its Vulkan score sit 15.1% below its Metal peak.

Averaging across all three tests, the 575X produces an aggregate score of 39,116, while the 580X lands at 38,706. That places the 575X just 1.1% ahead in average performance — a razor-thin edge that is statistically negligible but consistent. The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data confirm this: the 575X lists the 580X as its closest rival with a 1.1% positive delta, while the 580X lists the 575X with a -1% delta (the slight asymmetry stems from rounding). Both cards occupy the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they sit at the same tier relative to the broader market.

The nearestRivals context adds further perspective. The 575X's average score of 39,116 edges out the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38,691, +1.1%) and sits 1.1% below the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,555) and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568). The 580X's 38,706 average is effectively tied with the MX570 A (38,691, 0% delta) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349). Neither card breaks away from its peer group; both are clustered within a roughly 2% band of comparable mobile and professional GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 575X's single but emphatic win in Metal points to a use case centered on Apple's Metal API ecosystem. Given that both cards belong to the Radeon Pro Mac generation, Metal workloads are the native path for macOS applications, and the 575X's 12.8% advantage there is not trivial. For compute tasks that leverage Metal — common in creative applications, video processing, and certain scientific workloads on macOS — the 575X appears to punch above its hardware specifications, achieving higher scores despite having 256 fewer shading units and 1.0 GB/s less memory bandwidth than the 580X.

The Radeon Pro 580X claims OpenCL and Vulkan, making it the more versatile choice for cross-platform compute. OpenCL remains widely used in professional rendering, physics simulation, and machine learning inference, where the 580X's 4.5% edge could translate into meaningful reductions in job completion time. Vulkan, meanwhile, is increasingly relevant for GPU compute in game engines and real-time applications; the 580X's 5.5% lead there suggests it handles those workloads more efficiently. The 580X also brings 8 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB on the 575X, which, while not directly reflected in these compute benchmarks, matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures that exceed the 575X's memory capacity.

For users prioritizing raw FP32 throughput, the 580X's 5.530 TFLOPS versus the 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS represents a 23.2% theoretical advantage, and its texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s exceeds the 575X's 140.3 GTexel/s by a similar proportion. Yet those compute advantages do not uniformly translate into benchmark wins — the Metal result shows that API-level optimization can invert the hardware hierarchy. The practical takeaway: choose the 575X for Metal-centric workflows where the 12.8% benchmark lead matters, and the 580X for OpenCL/Vulkan or memory-hungry tasks where its 4 GB additional VRAM and higher throughput dominate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X averages 39,116 across Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan tests, compared to the Radeon Pro 580X's 38,706 — a 1.1% difference in favor of the 575X.

Q: How large is the Radeon Pro 575X's Metal advantage over the 580X?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the 575X scores 44,655 versus 39,577 for the 580X, a 12.8% lead. This is the largest performance gap in either direction across all three benchmarks.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 580X win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench OpenCL with 36,426 against the 575X's 34,773 (a 4.5% advantage) and Geekbench Vulkan with 40,115 against 37,919 (a 5.5% advantage).

Q: How do these cards compare to NVIDIA rivals?

A: The 575X's average score of 39,116 places it 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38,691) and 1.1% below the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568). The 580X's 38,706 average is effectively tied with the MX570 A (0% delta) and 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349).

Q: Do both GPUs occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Radeon Pro 575X and the Radeon Pro 580X sit at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, indicating identical market positioning relative to the broader GPU landscape.

Q: Which card has more memory, and does it affect benchmarks?

A: The Radeon Pro 580X has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the 575X's 4 GB. Despite this capacity advantage, the 580X's average score is 1.1% lower, showing that memory size alone does not dictate compute benchmark performance in these tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specifications despite sharing the same Ellesmere chip and GCN 4.0 architecture. The Radeon Pro 580X carries 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the 575X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. That translates to a 12.5% increase in shading units and TMUs for the 580X.

Clock speeds also differ: the 580X specifies a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the 575X lists no base or boost figures in the data. Memory clocks show a small gap — the 580X runs at 1710 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) versus 1695 MHz (also 6.8 Gbps effective) for the 575X. Memory capacity is the most consequential difference: 8 GB on the 580X versus 4 GB on the 575X, both using GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth follows the clock delta, with the 580X at 218.9 GB/s and the 575X at 217.0 GB/s.

Rates and throughput scale with the core configuration. The 580X achieves 38.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 172.8 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s for the 575X. FP32 and FP16 both sit at 5.530 TFLOPS for the 580X and 4.489 TFLOPS for the 575X, with a 1:1 FP16:FP32 ratio on both. Power draw differs substantially: the 580X is rated at 185 W TDP, the 575X at 150 W. Both are integrated GPU (IGP) form factors with no power connectors listed (the 580X's connector field is null).

Bus interfaces and display outputs are not identical. The 575X uses PCIe 3.0 x16 with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, while the 580X uses an Apple MPX interface with 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs. Both share the same 14 nm process, 5,700 million transistors, 232 mm² die size, and 24.6M / mm² transistor density from GlobalFoundries. API support matches: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 on both. Release dates align at March 17, 2019, and both are marked end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Ellesmere chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. The die is identical in physical terms: 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M / mm². Neither card features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with GCN 4.0's design predating those hardware blocks. The FP16 capability is a straightforward 1:1 ratio with FP32 on both, indicating no specialized half-rate or packed math path.

The architectural differences are entirely in configuration rather than design. The 580X enables 256 additional shading units and 16 extra TMUs, which is the primary source of its higher texture and pixel throughput. The memory subsystem is architecturally identical — 256-bit GDDR5 — but the 580X doubles the frame buffer capacity to 8 GB while marginally increasing the memory clock to 1710 MHz. The TDP gap of 35 W (185 W vs 150 W) suggests the 580X is configured with higher operating voltage or frequency headroom, though the boost clock delta (1200 MHz vs unspecified on the 575X) is the only clock evidence available.

The platform interfaces differ meaningfully: the 575X connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 and is described as portable-device-dependent, while the 580X uses Apple's MPX bus and offers fixed HDMI 2.0b outputs. This reflects different target chassis — the 575X appears aimed at portable Mac systems, the 580X at modular Mac Pro configurations — despite both being IGP form factors. The lack of power connectors on the 575X and a null value on the 580X suggests both draw power through their host interfaces rather than auxiliary cables. Neither card lists a launch MSRP, and both share the same production status (end-of-life) and release date, indicating they were positioned as a paired generation of Mac-compatible professional GPUs with the 580X as the higher-bin, higher-power variant and the 575X as the efficiency-leaning option.