AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M and AMD Radeon Pro 580 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. Benchmark data shows the RX 5600M, built on a newer architecture, holds a decisive lead across all shared test workloads. The average benchmark score for the RX 5600M is 46,601, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 580 averages 40,318, which lands in the 82nd percentile. This page analyzes the head-to-head results, architectural divergences, and specification differences to determine which GPU is better suited for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a clean sweep for the AMD Radeon RX 5600M across all three benchmark tests where both GPUs have recorded scores. The most significant disparity appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 5600M scores 76,653 against the Pro 580’s 39,213. This represents a 95.5% performance advantage for the newer GPU, nearly doubling the output of the older part. This massive gap suggests that the RDNA 1.0 architecture in the RX 5600M is far more efficient at executing the Metal API’s workload characteristics, which heavily favor the newer instruction set and memory subsystem.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a similar, though less extreme, pattern. The RX 5600M posts a score of 59,589, while the Pro 580 manages 38,457. The delta here is 54.9% in favor of the RX 5600M. While not as dramatic as the Metal result, this still represents a substantial performance lead. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, and the RX 5600M’s higher FP32 output of 5.829 TFLOPS compared to the Pro 580’s 5.530 TFLOPS, combined with its superior 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, explains a significant portion of this advantage.

The closest contest comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the RX 5600M scores 48,843, while the Pro 580 trails with 43,285. The winning margin is 12.8% for the RX 5600M. This narrower gap indicates that the Pro 580’s GCN 4.0 architecture is relatively more competitive under the Vulkan API than under Metal or OpenCL. It is likely that the older driver stack and hardware design of the Pro 580 are better optimized for Vulkan’s lower-level access patterns, though the raw performance headroom of the RX 5600M still carries the day.

The RX 5600M also holds a notable advantage in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores 1,320. The Pro 580 has no recorded score for this specific benchmark, meaning no direct comparison is possible. However, the RX 5600M’s result indicates a capable DirectX 12 performer, consistent with its API support for DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Pro 580 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Across the three shared tests, the RX 5600M wins all of them, with an average delta of approximately 54.4% across the board.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the superior performer in every benchmark where both GPUs have been tested. For users prioritizing raw speed in Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan workloads, the RX 5600M is the clear choice. Its 95.5% lead in Metal and 54.9% lead in OpenCL make it particularly well-suited for creative applications that leverage these APIs, such as video editing, 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated effects. The 12.8% advantage in Vulkan also makes it the better option for modern games and compute tasks that utilize this API.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580, despite being older, still holds relevance in one specific area: memory capacity. It offers 8 GB of VRAM compared to the RX 5600M’s 6 GB. For workloads that are capacity-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, such as large dataset processing or high-resolution texture loading, the Pro 580’s extra 2 GB could be a deciding factor. However, the RX 5600M’s memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s versus the Pro 580’s 217.0 GB/s means that for most throughput-intensive tasks, the newer GPU will not be bottlenecked by its smaller pool.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the RX 5600M sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 580 is in the 82nd. This difference, while modest, reflects the overall performance tier separation. The nearest rivals data corroborates this: the RX 5600M is bracketed by the Intel Arc A530M (avg score 46,614, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (avg score 46,702, -0.2% delta), placing it in a solid mid-range mobile segment. The Pro 580, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (avg score 40,377, -0.1% delta), which is a significantly different performance class. Strictly from the data, the RX 5600M is the better buy for almost any application, with the sole exception being scenarios that absolutely require more than 6 GB of VRAM.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M has a higher average benchmark score of 46,601, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 580’s 40,318. This represents a difference of roughly 15.6%.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5600M in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX 5600M scores 76,653 in Geekbench Metal, which is 95.5% higher than the Pro 580’s score of 39,213. This is the largest performance gap between the two GPUs in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 580 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory. However, the RX 5600M has higher memory bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 5600M scores 48,843, which is 12.8% higher than the Pro 580’s score of 43,285. This is the smallest margin of victory for the RX 5600M across the shared benchmarks.

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

A: The RX 5600M is ranked in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 580 is ranked in the 82nd percentile. This indicates the RX 5600M outperforms a larger portion of the overall GPU landscape.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 have a production status of "End-of-life" according to the data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their core specifications, reflecting their generational gap. The RX 5600M is built on a 7 nm process node, while the Pro 580 uses a 14 nm node, leading to a substantial difference in transistor density: 41.0M / mm² for the RX 5600M versus 24.6M / mm² for the Pro 580. The RX 5600M packs 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, whereas the Pro 580 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die.

Clock speeds also differ, with the RX 5600M having a base clock of 1035 MHz and a boost clock of 1265 MHz, while the Pro 580 has a higher base clock of 1100 MHz but a lower boost clock of 1200 MHz. The memory subsystems are notably different: the RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 580 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5600M also lists a "game" clock of 1190 MHz, a specification that the Pro 580 lacks.

Compute output varies as well. The RX 5600M achieves a pixel rate of 80.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 182.2 GTexel/s, while the Pro 580 manages 38.40 GPixel/s and 172.8 GTexel/s respectively. The FP32 performance is 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M and 5.530 TFLOPS for the Pro 580. The RX 5600M also supports FP16 at 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Pro 580 is limited to 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1). The RX 5600M has a TDP of 150 W and uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the Pro 580 has a 185 W TDP and uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences between the two GPUs are profound, explaining the performance gap. The RX 5600M is based on the Navi 10 chip using the RDNA 1.0 architecture, part of the Radeon RX 5000 series and the Navi Mobile generation. The Pro 580, in contrast, uses the Ellesmere chip with the GCN 4.0 architecture, belonging to the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation. This generational shift from GCN to RDNA brought major changes in execution efficiency, cache hierarchy, and instruction scheduling.

Both GPUs have 2304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units, indicating a similar core count. However, the ROP count differs: the RX 5600M has 64 ROPs, while the Pro 580 has only 32. This directly explains the RX 5600M’s superior pixel rate of 80.96 GPixel/s versus 38.40 GPixel/s. Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The API support also differs, with the RX 5600M supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 580 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The RX 5600M is manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, while the Pro 580 is made by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The RX 5600M’s higher transistor count (10,300 million vs 5,700 million) on a similar die size (251 mm² vs 232 mm²) highlights the density advantage of the newer node. The RX 5600M also features a faster memory clock at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) compared to the Pro 580’s 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), though the latter’s wider 256-bit bus partially compensates in raw bandwidth. The release dates reflect this gap, with the RX 5600M launching in July 2020 and the Pro 580 in June 2017.