AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two Ellesmere-based AMD graphics cards. The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins all three recorded head-to-head comparisons, making it the stronger performer in every measured workload. Its advantages range from 8.5% in OpenCL to 17.5% in Vulkan, with Metal sitting in between at 12.5%. The RX 480's average benchmark score of 33997 places it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 575X scores 39116 on average, good for the 82nd percentile. This apparent contradiction, where the Pro card holds a higher percentile despite losing every direct comparison, reflects the different benchmark pools each card is tested against. The Pro 575X sits among workstation-class peers like the Radeon Pro 580X and RTX A500 Mobile, while the RX 480 competes in a broader field that includes older cards like the HD 7950 and newer mobile parts like the RX 7700S.

For users choosing between these two, the RX 480 is the straightforward pick when raw compute performance is the priority. It delivers higher pixel throughput, higher texture throughput, more shading units, and double the memory capacity at 8 GB versus 4 GB. The Pro 575X, however, is an integrated part of a portable system, drawing power without external connectors and requiring no expansion slot beyond the IGP mounting. That makes it the only viable option in its specific form factor. The data does not support choosing the Pro 575X for performance reasons; its advantages are entirely practical, related to integration rather than speed. Anyone building or upgrading a desktop system should look to the RX 480, while those constrained to a Mac Pro chassis with the 500X series form factor have no choice but the Pro 575X.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 51057 in Geekbench Metal, which is 12.5% higher than the Radeon Pro 575X's 44655. The RX 480 wins this comparison.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 480 records 45968 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 37919 for the Pro 575X, a difference of 17.5% in favor of the RX 480. This is the largest margin of the three recorded tests.

Q: Do both cards use the same underlying chip?

A: Yes. Both the Radeon Pro 575X and the Radeon RX 480 are built on the Ellesmere chip using GCN 4.0 architecture on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. Both have 5,700 million transistors and a 232 mm² die size.

Q: What is the memory difference between the two?

A: The Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus but with higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Does either card support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Their API feature sets are identical in the recorded data.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Pro 575X has an average benchmark score of 39116, while the RX 480 averages 33997. The Pro 575X also sits in the 82nd percentile versus the RX 480's 78th percentile, despite losing every direct head-to-head test.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture. The Ellesmere chip, built on GCN 4.0, is present in both products. GlobalFoundries fabricates both on a 14 nm process, and both integrate 5,700 million transistors within a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 in both cases.

The differences emerge in implementation. The RX 480 carries more execution resources: 2304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units, compared to 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs on the Pro 575X. Both have 32 ROPs. The RX 480 also runs higher clocks, with a base of 1120 MHz and a boost of 1266 MHz, while the Pro 575X has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database. The memory subsystem differs as well: the RX 480 uses 2000 MHz memory (8 Gbps effective) while the Pro 575X runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). Both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

The physical presentation diverges sharply. The Pro 575X is an integrated graphics processor, mounted as an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width beyond the integrated form factor. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning the connections depend on the host system. The RX 480 is a dual-slot expansion card measuring 240 mm in length, 95 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested power supply. It offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Both cards are end-of-life products. The RX 480 was released in 2019-03-17 for the Pro 575X versus 2016-06-28 for the RX 480, making the Pro card a later addition to the Ellesmere family. The RX 480 lists Pirate Islands as its predecessor and Polaris as its successor, while the Pro 575X has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show the RX 480 leading in nearly every computational category. Shading units favor the RX 480 at 2304 versus 2048, a difference of 256 units. Texture mapping units favor the RX 480 at 144 versus 128. Pixel rate favors the RX 480 at 40.51 GPixel/s against 35.07 GPixel/s for the Pro 575X. Texture rate favors the RX 480 at 182.3 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s. Floating point performance favors the RX 480 at 5.834 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, against 4.489 TFLOPS for the Pro 575X in both precisions. The RX 480's FP32 output is roughly 30% higher than the Pro 575X based on these figures.

Memory capacity doubles on the RX 480: 8 GB versus 4 GB. Memory bandwidth also favors the RX 480 at 256.0 GB/s against 217.0 GB/s. Both cards use a 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory. The RX 480's memory clock is recorded as 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Pro 575X runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective).

The RX 480 has recorded base and boost clocks of 1120 MHz and 1266 MHz respectively. The Pro 575X has no base or boost clock data in the database. Both cards have a TDP of 150 W. The RX 480's dimensions are fully recorded at 240 mm by 95 mm by 35 mm, while the Pro 575X has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its integrated nature. The RX 480 carries a launch MSRP of 229 USD, while the Pro 575X has no recorded launch price.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three recorded head-to-head comparisons all favor the AMD Radeon RX 480. The smallest margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 480 scores 37998 against the Pro 575X's 34773, a difference of 8.5%. This is the closest contest between the two cards, suggesting the OpenCL workload is the least sensitive to the architectural differences between them.

Geekbench Metal shows a wider gap. The RX 480 records 51057, while the Pro 575X manages 44655. The 12.5% delta places the RX 480 comfortably ahead in Apple's graphics API. This is notable because the Pro 575X is designed for Mac systems, yet the consumer RX 480 still outperforms it in Metal workloads.

Geekbench Vulkan produces the largest margin. The RX 480 scores 45968 versus 37919 for the Pro 575X, a 17.5% advantage. Vulkan is a low-level API that tends to expose raw hardware capabilities, and the RX 480's additional shading units, TMUs, higher clocks, and faster memory all contribute to this outcome.

The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Pro 575X averages 39116 across all recorded benchmarks, while the RX 480 averages 33997. The Pro 575X's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at 38706 (1.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38691 (1.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 575 at 39555 (1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39568 (1.1% ahead). The RX 480's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7950 at 33951 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT at 34133 (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7700S at 33849 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34154 (0.5% ahead). The Pro 575X competes in a higher-scoring tier, while the RX 480 sits in a cluster of cards scoring near 34000.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its 17.5% Vulkan advantage makes it the stronger choice for Vulkan-based games and compute workloads. Its 12.5% Metal advantage extends that lead to Apple's ecosystem, despite the Pro 575X being the Mac-oriented product. Its 8.5% OpenCL advantage covers general-purpose GPU compute. The RX 480 also offers double the memory capacity, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger datasets. Higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput all point to the RX 480 as the superior compute device.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins in integration and practicality. It requires no power connectors, fits as an IGP, and draws no additional slot space. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning the host system determines connectivity. For a Mac user with a 500X series chassis, the Pro 575X is the only option that physically fits. Its 150 W TDP matches the RX 480, but the lack of external power requirements simplifies installation. The Pro 575X also holds a higher percentile ranking at 82 versus 78, and a higher average benchmark score of 39116 versus 33997, though these figures reflect different comparison pools rather than direct performance.

The data does not support any scenario where the Pro 575X outperforms the RX 480 in raw speed. The RX 480 wins all three head-to-head tests, has more execution resources, higher clocks, more memory, and higher bandwidth. The Pro 575X's appeal is entirely form-factor driven: it exists for systems that need an integrated Ellesmere GPU with no external power or expansion requirements. For any workload where performance is the sole criterion, the RX 480 is the clear choice. For any system where the Pro 575X's IGP form factor is mandatory, it remains the only option, and its performance, while lower, still lands within 8.5% to 17.5% of the RX 480 depending on the API.