AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700X Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is the clear performance leader across every recorded benchmark, winning all three head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Radeon Pro 580. The database shows an average benchmark score of 54828 for the W5700X versus 40318 for the Pro 580, a difference of roughly 36 percent. The W5700X places in the 87th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 580 sits in the 82nd percentile. Users who need maximum compute throughput for GPU-accelerated workflows should choose the W5700X. The Pro 580 remains a functional option for lighter tasks, but the data consistently favors the newer Navi-based card. Neither card is still in production; both are listed as end-of-life, so availability is limited to existing stock or secondhand markets.

Architecture Differences

The W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip built on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the Pro 580 uses the Ellesmere chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. This node difference contributes to a substantial change in transistor density: the W5700X packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding 41.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Pro 580 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The W5700X’s architecture is RDNA 1.0, whereas the Pro 580 uses GCN 4.0. This generational shift affects instruction scheduling and throughput characteristics.

The W5700X features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operators. The Pro 580 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W5700X’s pixel rate is 130.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 326.4 GTexel/s, compared to 38.40 GPixel/s and 172.8 GTexel/s for the Pro 580. Memory configurations differ sharply: the W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W5700X’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), versus 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) for the Pro 580. Floating-point performance also diverges: the W5700X delivers 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.89 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 580 delivers 5.530 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio).

The W5700X has a higher base clock of 1243 MHz and boost clock of 2040 MHz, compared to 1100 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost for the Pro 580. Power draw is similar, with the W5700X at 205 W and the Pro 580 at 185 W. The W5700X uses an Apple MPX bus interface and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 580 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has no dedicated power connectors. The W5700X is a quad-slot card with 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt outputs; the Pro 580 is an integrated graphics processor with portable device dependent outputs. API support differs slightly: both support DirectX 12 (the W5700X at 12_1, the Pro 580 at 12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (the W5700X at 1.4, the Pro 580 at 1.3). The W5700X launched on 2019-12-10 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD; the Pro 580 launched on 2017-06-04.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin appears in the Geekbench Metal test. The W5700X scores 75427, while the Pro 580 scores 39213. That is a 92.4 percent advantage for the W5700X. This result reflects both the higher shading unit count and the much faster memory subsystem, which matter heavily in Metal-optimized workloads.

The Geekbench OpenCL result is closer but still decisive. The W5700X posts 43810, versus 38457 for the Pro 580, a 13.9 percent lead. OpenCL workloads on the older GCN architecture remain competitive, but the newer RDNA design pulls ahead on raw compute throughput. The W5700X’s FP32 output of 10.44 TFLOPS versus 5.530 TFLOPS explains part of the gap, though the benchmark result is smaller than the theoretical compute delta would suggest.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the smallest difference. The W5700X reaches 45246, and the Pro 580 reaches 43285, a 4.5 percent edge. This indicates that Vulkan performance on the GCN 4.0 architecture is comparatively strong, especially given the Pro 580’s older process node and lower clock speeds. Still, the W5700X wins. The database records 3 wins for the W5700X and 0 wins for the Pro 580 across these three tests.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the W5700X sits within a narrow band. It trails the AMD Radeon 8060S by 1.7 percent and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 1.6 percent, while leading the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 and RTX 4080 SUPER by 1.1 percent each. The Pro 580 is similarly clustered: it lags the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 by 0.1 percent and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 by 1.4 percent, while leading the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 by 0.6 percent and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile by 1.9 percent. These small deltas suggest both cards are positioned in competitive performance tiers, but the W5700X operates in a higher absolute band.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The W5700X has 448.0 GB/s bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The Pro 580 has 217.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the most demanding benchmark?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the W5700X scores 75427 versus 39213 for the Pro 580, a 92.4 percent advantage. This is the largest delta among all recorded tests.

Q: Does the Pro 580 win anywhere?

A: No. The database records 3 wins for the W5700X and 0 wins for the Pro 580 across the Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan tests.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Neither card is in production. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The W5700X has a TDP of 205 W, and the Pro 580 has a TDP of 185 W. The W5700X also requires a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 580 has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan support?

A: The W5700X reports Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Pro 580 reports Vulkan 1.3. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W5700X scores 45246 versus 43285 for the Pro 580, a 4.5 percent lead.

Where Each One Wins

The W5700X wins in every recorded scenario. Its largest advantage, 92.4 percent in Geekbench Metal, makes it the clear choice for Metal-centric applications, which dominate macOS-based creative workflows. The combination of 16 GB GDDR6 memory, 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 130.6 GPixel/s pixel rate supports high-resolution texture loads and heavy compositing. The 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.89 TFLOPS FP16 output also positions it well for compute-heavy rendering and machine learning inference tasks that leverage half-precision arithmetic. Its 2040 MHz boost clock and 2560 shading units give it headroom for sustained GPU-bound workloads.

The Pro 580, while losing all three benchmarks, still holds relevance in specific contexts. Its Vulkan score of 43285 is only 4.5 percent behind the W5700X, meaning Vulkan-based game engines or cross-platform applications see a smaller penalty. Its 5.530 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 at 1:1 ratio make it predictable for tasks that require identical precision across both formats. The 185 W TDP, lower than the W5700X’s 205 W, and the lack of dedicated power connectors make it easier to integrate into systems without auxiliary power delivery. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is standard, and its integrated graphics processor design means no extra slot width is required.

For users constrained by power delivery or physical space, the Pro 580 offers a lower-draw alternative. For users prioritizing raw performance, the W5700X is the only defensible choice. The data shows no scenario where the Pro 580 outperforms the W5700X, but the magnitude of the gap varies by API. Metal users see the most dramatic difference; Vulkan users see the least. The W5700X’s nearest rival cluster includes the RTX 4080 and RTX 4080 SUPER with deltas of 1.1 percent, placing it in the same performance conversation as those cards. The Pro 580’s cluster is anchored by the RTX 5070 at a 0.1 percent deficit, which shows it remains competitive with modern mid-range parts despite its older architecture. In short, the W5700X is the high-end pick, and the Pro 580 is a serviceable fallback for less demanding deployments.