AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT than the AMD Radeon Pro 575X in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 6900 XT scores 177021 in Geekbench Metal, while the Pro 575X scores 44655. That is a 296.4% advantage for the RX 6900 XT.

Q: Which card shows the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6900 XT scores 187673 versus 34773 for the Pro 575X. The delta is 439.7% in favor of the RX 6900 XT.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The RX 6900 XT has an average benchmark score of 50951, while the Pro 575X has an average benchmark score of 39116. The RX 6900 XT sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, and the Pro 575X sits at the 82nd percentile.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 575X win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. Across the three shared tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), the RX 6900 XT wins all three. The wins tally is 3 for the RX 6900 XT and 0 for the Pro 575X.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each card?

A: For the RX 6900 XT, the closest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, which is 1.6% behind, followed by the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 1.9% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 2% behind, and the Intel Arc A550M at 2.4% behind. For the Pro 575X, the AMD Radeon Pro 580X is 1.1% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is 1.1% ahead, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is 1.1% behind, and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is 1.1% behind.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RX 6900 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT is a far more powerful card than the AMD Radeon Pro 575X in every measurable way. Across the three benchmark tests they share, the RX 6900 XT wins all of them, with deltas ranging from 291.7% to 439.7%. The average benchmark score difference is also substantial: 50951 versus 39116, a gap of roughly 30% in favor of the RX 6900 XT.

For users who need maximum compute performance, the RX 6900 XT is the clear choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 187673 dwarfs the Pro 575X's 34773, and its Metal score of 177021 is nearly four times the Pro 575X's 44655. The RX 6900 XT also offers a much larger memory pool (16 GB versus 4 GB), which matters for workloads that exceed the Pro 575X's capacity.

The Pro 575X, however, is not without a niche. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, meaning it can fit into portable systems where a discrete card with a triple-slot footprint and 2x 8-pin connectors would be physically impossible. Its 150 W TDP is half that of the RX 6900 XT's 300 W, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is older but adequate for its performance level. The Pro 575X targets a completely different form factor and power envelope.

Who should pick which? If the requirement is raw performance, the RX 6900 XT wins outright. If the requirement is a low-power, IGP solution for a portable or space-constrained system, the Pro 575X is the only viable option between the two. There is no scenario where the Pro 575X outperforms the RX 6900 XT in shared benchmarks, so the decision hinges entirely on physical and power constraints, not on speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers three tests: Geekbench Metal, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. In all three, the RX 6900 XT records a decisive win.

Starting with Geekbench Metal, the RX 6900 XT scores 177021 against the Pro 575X's 44655. The delta is 296.4%. This is the smallest gap of the three tests, but it is still a nearly fourfold difference. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and the Pro 575X is part of the Radeon Pro Mac series, so one might expect it to be relatively competitive in this test. The data says otherwise.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the gap widens. The RX 6900 XT scores 187673, while the Pro 575X scores 34773. The delta is 439.7%. This is the largest advantage in the entire comparison. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and the RX 6900 XT's 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the Pro 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS explains the scale of the difference. The RX 6900 XT has more than five times the FP32 throughput.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern. The RX 6900 XT scores 148525, and the Pro 575X scores 37919. The delta is 291.7%. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the RX 6900 XT's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the Pro 575X's Vulkan 1.3 may contribute to the gap, though the raw hardware difference is the dominant factor.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the RX 6900 XT has additional scores that the Pro 575X does not share. In Passmark G3D, the RX 6900 XT scores 26732. In Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 14547. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 4079. The Pro 575X has no recorded scores for these tests, so a direct comparison is not possible from the database. However, the RX 6900 XT's percentile rank of 86 versus the Pro 575X's percentile rank of 82 indicates that both cards sit in similar overall tiers relative to all GPUs, despite the massive head-to-head deltas. This is because the Pro 575X's nearest rivals are clustered closely around its average score, while the RX 6900 XT's rivals are also close to its average, but the absolute values are far apart.

The nearest rival data reinforces the gap. The RX 6900 XT's closest rival, the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, averages 51790, which is 1.6% higher. The Pro 575X's closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 575, averages 39555, which is 1.1% higher. These are different performance strata entirely.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field that the database records.

Memory is a major differentiator. The RX 6900 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the bandwidth differs sharply: 512.0 GB/s for the RX 6900 XT versus 217.0 GB/s for the Pro 575X. The memory clock is also different, with the RX 6900 XT running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and the Pro 575X at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective).

The compute units differ in scale. The RX 6900 XT has 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operations pipelines. The Pro 575X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This is a 2.5x difference in shading units, a 2.5x difference in TMUs, and a 4x difference in ROPs.

Clock speeds are recorded differently. The RX 6900 XT has a base clock of 1825 MHz, a boost clock of 2250 MHz, and a game clock of 2015 MHz. The Pro 575X has no recorded base, boost, or game clock in the database. Its memory clock is the only clock figure available.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware counts. The RX 6900 XT delivers 288.0 GPixel/s and 720.0 GTexel/s. The Pro 575X delivers 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications are starkly different. The RX 6900 XT has a TDP of 300 W, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, is a triple-slot card, and needs a 700 W suggested PSU. The Pro 575X has a TDP of 150 W, no power connectors, is an IGP, and has no suggested PSU. The RX 6900 XT has dimensions of 267 mm length, 120 mm height, and 50 mm width. The Pro 575X has no recorded dimensions.

Bus interface also differs. The RX 6900 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro 575X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the RX 6900 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C, while the Pro 575X has "Portable Device Dependent" outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The RX 6900 XT is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 21 chip, and belongs to the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. The Pro 575X is built on GCN 4.0, using the Ellesmere chip, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) generation.

The process nodes reflect the time gap. The RX 6900 XT is manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro 575X is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts differ enormously: the RX 6900 XT has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The Pro 575X has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a density of 24.6M per mm². The RX 6900 XT has roughly 4.7 times the transistor count and more than double the die area.

Ray tracing support is a key architectural difference. The RX 6900 XT has 80 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Pro 575X has no ray tracing cores recorded. This is a fundamental capability difference that affects any workload using ray-traced effects.

FP16 compute also differs. The RX 6900 XT delivers 46.08 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The Pro 575X delivers 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. This means the RX 6900 XT can double its FP16 throughput, while the Pro 575X cannot.

API support differs in version levels. The RX 6900 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level difference (12_2 versus 12_0) is significant for modern games and applications that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The predecessor and successor fields also mark the generational divide. The RX 6900 XT's predecessor is Navi, and its successor is Navi III. The Pro 575X has no recorded predecessor or successor. Release dates differ by about a year and a half: the RX 6900 XT was released on 2020-10-27, and the Pro 575X on 2019-03-17.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6900 XT wins every shared benchmark, so the use-case analysis is about the nature of those wins, not about trading victories.

In compute-heavy workloads, the RX 6900 XT is dominant. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 187673 is 439.7% higher than the Pro 575X's 34773. This aligns with its 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 and 46.08 TFLOPS FP16 performance. Tasks like rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute will see a massive advantage on the RX 6900 XT.

In graphics workloads using Metal or Vulkan, the RX 6900 XT also wins decisively. The Metal score (177021 versus 44655, a 296.4% delta) and the Vulkan score (148525 versus 37919, a 291.7% delta) both show the RX 6900 XT at roughly three to four times the performance. The 80 ray tracing cores give it capabilities that the Pro 575X lacks entirely.

The RX 6900 XT also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 16 GB of GDDR6 and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, it can handle larger textures, bigger datasets, and higher resolutions than the Pro 575X's 4 GB of GDDR5 at 217.0 GB/s. For workloads that exhaust 4 GB, the Pro 575X will simply fail where the RX 6900 XT continues.

The Pro 575X's wins are not in performance but in form factor and power. It is an IGP with no power connectors, a 150 W TDP, and no recorded dimensions because it is designed for portable devices. The RX 6900 XT, by contrast, is a triple-slot card requiring 2x 8-pin connectors and a 700 W PSU. In a Mac laptop or an all-in-one system, the Pro 575X is the only option that physically fits. In any desktop system with adequate power and space, the RX 6900 XT is categorically superior.

The percentile data adds context. The RX 6900 XT sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, and the Pro 575X sits at the 82nd percentile. Despite the huge absolute performance gap, both cards are in the upper tier of the database. The Pro 575X's nearest rivals (Radeon Pro 580X, GeForce MX570 A, Radeon Pro 575, RTX A500 Mobile) are all within 1.1% of its average score, showing that it is competitive within its own class. The RX 6900 XT's rivals (CMP 50HX, RX Vega 64, RTX 5070 Ti, Arc A550M) are also closely matched, within 2.4% of its average. The two cards simply operate in different leagues.

The final use-case recommendation is straightforward. For any workload where performance matters and power/space constraints allow it, the RX 6900 XT is the clear winner across all three head-to-head benchmarks. For systems that require an IGP with no external power, the Pro 575X is the only choice between the two, but it comes with a 4x to 5x performance penalty in the shared tests.