AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 represent two very different philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by nearly a decade of design priorities despite being close in overall market standing. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the specific strengths of each card tell a more nuanced story than a single aggregate score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data set is Geekbench Metal, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 73,512 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X manages 44,655 points. This translates to a 39.3% delta in favor of the Vega 56. In practical terms, the Vega 56 is roughly 65% faster than the Pro 575X in this specific test, a massive gap that reflects the fundamental differences in their silicon.

The aggregate benchmark scores tell a similar, though slightly less dramatic, story. The Pro 575X averages 39,116 points across its tested workloads, which places it at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. The Vega 56 averages 37,507 points, sitting at the 81st percentile. This is a curious inversion: the Vega 56 wins the head-to-head Metal test by a wide margin, yet its average score is actually 4.1% lower than the Pro 575X’s average. This discrepancy stems from the differing benchmark suites available for each card. The Pro 575X has results in Geekbench OpenCL (34,773) and Vulkan (37,919) alongside its Metal score, while the Vega 56’s average is pulled down by a relatively low 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1,501 points.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The Pro 575X’s average score of 39,116 puts it just 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38,691), while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,555) and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568) by 1.1%. This tight clustering indicates the Pro 575X is a mid-pack performer, competitive with its immediate peers but not a standout. The Vega 56’s average of 37,507, by contrast, sits in a different competitive neighborhood: it trails the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628) by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135) by 1.6%, while leading the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37,157) by 0.9%. The Vega 56 is also just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648), a remarkable result for a card from 2017.

The single head-to-head data point is unambiguous: the Vega 56 is the superior performer in raw compute. However, the aggregate scores reveal that the Pro 575X holds its own in a broader set of legacy and cross-platform APIs, making it a more balanced option for certain workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X is built on the Ellesmere chip, which uses the GCN 4.0 architecture and belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) generation. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip with the newer GCN 5.0 architecture and belongs to the Vega (RX Vega) generation. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts reveal the scale of the difference. The Pro 575X packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The Vega 56 more than doubles this, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.3M per mm². The Vega 56’s die is more than twice the physical size of the Pro 575X’s, and the transistor density is slightly higher, indicating a more complex and power-hungry design.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Pro 575X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This is a 75% increase in shading units and TMUs, and a 100% increase in ROPs. The raw throughput numbers reflect this: the Pro 575X delivers 4.489 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 4.489 TFLOPS for FP16 (a 1:1 ratio), while the Vega 56 delivers 10.54 TFLOPS of FP32 and 21.09 TFLOPS of FP16 (a 2:1 ratio). The Vega 56 is more than twice as fast in FP32 and nearly five times as fast in FP16.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same trajectory. The Pro 575X achieves 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s, whereas the Vega 56 achieves 94.14 GPixel/s and 329.5 GTexel/s. The Vega 56’s advantage is roughly 2.7x in pixel throughput and 2.3x in texture throughput. Memory architecture is another point of divergence: the Pro 575X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 56’s memory bandwidth is nearly double, and its bus width is eight times larger.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, with 10.54 TFLOPS, is more than double the 4.489 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon Pro 575X.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 575X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The Pro 575X was released in March 2019, and the Vega 56 was released in August 2017.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Pro 575X has a 150 W TDP, while the Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP, a 60 W gap that reflects the Vega 56’s larger silicon and higher performance.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3, but they differ in DirectX support: the Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Vega 56 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which card has a higher aggregate benchmark score percentile?

A: The Pro 575X sits at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 56 sits at the 81st percentile, despite the Vega 56 winning the head-to-head Metal test.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 listed first where applicable:

• Chip: Ellesmere (Pro 575X) vs Vega 10 (Vega 56)
• Architecture: GCN 4.0 vs GCN 5.0
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) vs Vega (RX Vega)
• Transistors: 5,700 million vs 12,500 million
• Die Size: 232 mm² vs 495 mm²
• Transistor Density: 24.6M / mm² vs 25.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 1156 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 1471 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) vs 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs HBM2
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 2048 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 217.0 GB/s vs 409.6 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2048 vs 3584
• TMUs: 128 vs 224
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 35.07 GPixel/s vs 94.14 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 140.3 GTexel/s vs 329.5 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.489 TFLOPS vs 10.54 TFLOPS
• FP16: 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 150 W vs 210 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 550 W
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 280 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width
• Release Date: 2019-03-17 vs 2017-08-13
• Predecessor: Not listed vs Polaris
• Successor: Not listed vs Navi
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 399 USD (stated once as launch MSRP)
• Geekbench Metal Score: 44,655 vs 73,512

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for different use cases. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 is the outright performance winner in the head-to-head Geekbench Metal test, beating the Pro 575X by 39.3%. Its 8 GB of HBM2 memory, 2048-bit bus, and 10.54 TFLOPS of FP32 compute make it the superior choice for any workload that demands raw throughput, particularly those leveraging FP16 (21.09 TFLOPS) or high-bandwidth memory access. The Vega 56 is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W PSU, which is a non-issue for a desktop build.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X, however, is not without merit. Its 150 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate a design intended for integrated or portable systems where power and space are constrained. Its aggregate benchmark score is actually higher than the Vega 56’s (39,116 vs 37,507), and it sits at a slightly higher percentile (82nd vs 81st). This suggests that in a broader range of legacy and cross-platform APIs, the Pro 575X is more consistent, even if it lacks the Vega 56’s peak performance.

The verdict is straightforward: for desktop users seeking maximum performance, the Vega 56 is the clear pick, offering double the FP32 compute and nearly double the memory bandwidth. For users constrained by physical space or power budgets, or those who need a card that performs evenly across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads, the Pro 575X is the more balanced choice, albeit with significantly lower peak capability. The Vega 56’s 399 USD launch MSRP also positioned it as a high-end desktop part, whereas the Pro 575X’s lack of a listed MSRP and integrated form factor suggest it was never intended for the same market segment.