AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are decisive in favor of the AMD Radeon RX 6550M. Across the two shared tests, the RX 6550M wins both, with its largest advantage appearing in the Vulkan workload. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6550M scores 50,867 against the Pro 575X's 37,919, a 34.1% lead. This is a substantial margin that indicates a major generational leap in graphics API performance. The OpenCL test tells a similar, though slightly less dramatic, story: the RX 6550M scores 42,536, while the Pro 575X manages 34,773, putting the newer part 22.3% ahead.

These deltas are not minor statistical variations. A 34.1% difference in Vulkan suggests that the RX 6550M handles modern, low-level API workloads with far greater efficiency, which is consistent with its newer architecture. The 22.3% OpenCL advantage reinforces that the RX 6550M is not just faster in one specific API but holds a broad compute lead. When looking at the overall average benchmark score, the RX 6550M sits at 46,702, compared to the Pro 575X's 39,116, a gap of roughly 19.4% based on the recorded averages. The data indicates that for any task that can use either API, the RX 6550M is the stronger performer.

The Pro 575X does have one recorded score that is competitive: its Geekbench Metal result of 44,655. However, the RX 6550M has no Metal score in the database, so no direct comparison can be made on that Apple-specific API. For all shared benchmarks, the RX 6550M is the clear winner. The head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for the RX 6550M and 0 wins for the Pro 575X.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 46,702, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 575X's 39,116. This places the RX 6550M in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 575X sits in the 82nd percentile.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6550M in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The RX 6550M is 34.1% faster than the Pro 575X in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 50,867 versus 37,919.

Q: Is the Pro 575X competitive in any benchmark?

A: The Pro 575X has a strong Geekbench Metal score of 44,655, but the RX 6550M has no recorded Metal score, so a direct comparison on that API is not possible in the database.

Q: What is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6550M leads by 22.3%, with a score of 42,536 against the Pro 575X's 34,773.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 6550M ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, which is higher than the Pro 575X's 82nd percentile ranking.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare to each GPU?

A: The RX 6550M's closest rival is the Intel Arc A530M, which has an average score of 46,614, a 0.2% difference. The Pro 575X's closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 575, with an average score of 39,555, which is 1.1% higher than the Pro 575X's average.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the superior GPU based on recorded benchmarks. It wins the OpenCL and Vulkan tests by substantial margins of 22.3% and 34.1%, respectively. Its average benchmark score is 19.4% higher than the Pro 575X's, and it holds a higher percentile ranking. The RX 6550M is also built on a much newer process node and architecture, which explains its efficiency and performance advantages.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X should only be considered if a specific workload requires the Metal API, where it has a recorded score of 44,655. However, since the RX 6550M lacks a Metal score, it is impossible to determine which is better in that scenario. For any task that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 6550M is the definitive pick. The Pro 575X is an older, end-of-life product with lower performance and higher power consumption. The verdict is straightforward: the RX 6550M wins decisively on every comparable metric.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 575X also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a higher 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the Pro 575X's wider bus and higher bandwidth, it still loses in compute performance, showing that bandwidth alone is not the deciding factor.

The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The Pro 575X has significantly more: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the RX 6550M compensates with much higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 2000 MHz, with a game clock of 2560 MHz and a boost clock of 2840 MHz. The Pro 575X's clocks are not listed in the database, but its pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s is far lower than the RX 6550M's 90.88 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the RX 6550M, at 181.8 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W, while the Pro 575X draws 150 W. This means the RX 6550M delivers far more performance per watt. The bus interface also differs: the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Pro 575X uses the older PCIe 3.0 x16. Neither card requires external power connectors, and both are integrated into the motherboard (IGP). The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 575X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The RX 6550M is based on the Navi 24 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Pro 575X uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process difference is critical: the RX 6550M's 6 nm node allows for a transistor density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Pro 575X's 14 nm node achieves only 24.6 million per square millimeter.

The RX 6550M has 5,400 million transistors on a die size of 107 mm², while the Pro 575X has 5,700 million transistors on a much larger 232 mm² die. The RX 6550M is a more compact and efficient design. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 575X, which has no ray tracing hardware. The RDNA 2.0 architecture supports FP16 compute at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 11.63 TFLOPS, while the Pro 575X's GCN 4.0 architecture only achieves 4.489 TFLOPS for FP16, identical to its FP32 rate. In FP32, the RX 6550M provides 5.816 TFLOPS versus the Pro 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS.

The RX 6550M is from the Radeon RX 6000 series, specifically the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation, and is still in active production. The Pro 575X is from the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) generation and is end-of-life. The RX 6550M was released in January 2023, while the Pro 575X dates to March 2019. The RX 6550M's predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile, while the Pro 575X has no recorded predecessor. These differences explain the performance gap: the RX 6550M is a modern, efficient design with dedicated ray tracing, while the Pro 575X is a legacy product from a previous era.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in every scenario that involves OpenCL or Vulkan compute, which covers most modern gaming, rendering, and general-purpose GPU workloads. Its 34.1% Vulkan advantage makes it the clear choice for applications that leverage the Vulkan API, such as many recent game engines and cross-platform compute frameworks. Its 22.3% OpenCL lead ensures strong performance in productivity applications that use OpenCL for acceleration. The RX 6550M's higher pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s also makes it better suited for high-resolution display output and rasterization-heavy tasks. Its lower TDP of 80 W means it can be deployed in thinner, lighter systems without the thermal and power demands of the Pro 575X.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has only one potential advantage: its Metal benchmark score of 44,655. For macOS environments that rely heavily on the Metal API, the Pro 575X has a recorded performance level, while the RX 6550M has no Metal score in the database. Additionally, the Pro 575X has a wider 256-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s, which could theoretically benefit memory-intensive workloads, though the benchmark data does not show it overcoming the RX 6550M's compute advantages. The Pro 575X also has more shading units and TMUs, but the RX 6550M's superior clock speeds and architecture render these raw counts less relevant.

In summary, the RX 6550M is the winner for gaming, Vulkan-based applications, and any workload where power efficiency matters. The Pro 575X is only worth considering for users who specifically need a GPU with a recorded Metal performance score in a Mac environment. For all other use cases, the data strongly favors the RX 6550M.