AMD Radeon Pro 580X vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear picture: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins all three shared benchmark tests against the AMD Radeon Pro 580X. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Metal, where the RX 5600M scores 76,653 against the Pro 580X’s 39,577, a 93.7% advantage. That is nearly double the performance in Apple’s Metal API, a significant margin for any GPU comparison. The RX 5600M also leads in Geekbench OpenCL, posting 59,589 versus 36,426, a 63.6% delta. The narrowest win comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 5600M scores 48,843 against 40,115, still a solid 21.8% lead.

The average benchmark score reinforces the trend. The RX 5600M sits at 46,601, while the Pro 580X averages 38,706. That places the RX 5600M roughly 20.4% higher on aggregate, consistent with the individual test results. The percentile rankings tell a similar story: the RX 5600M lands in the 85th percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro 580X sits at the 82nd percentile. Though both are above the median, the RX 5600M holds a measurable edge in overall standing.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the RX 5600M’s average score of 46,601 places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702) and effectively tied with the Intel Arc A530M (46,614). It also leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043) by 1.2% and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972) by 1.4%. These are close margins, indicating the RX 5600M competes in a tight cluster around the 46,000 to 47,000 score range. The Pro 580X, by contrast, sits near 38,706, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38,691 (a 0% delta). It also trails the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116) by 1% and leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 (38,299) by 1.1%. The Pro 580X’s rival cluster is roughly 8,000 points lower than the RX 5600M’s, confirming a clear tier separation.

The head-to-head data shows no tests where the Pro 580X wins. Across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, the RX 5600M dominates every metric. The win count stands at 3 for the RX 5600M and 0 for the Pro 580X. No benchmark in the database reverses this outcome.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M records an average benchmark score of 46,601, compared to 38,706 for the AMD Radeon Pro 580X. That is a difference of roughly 7,895 points.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 5600M scores 76,653 in Geekbench Metal, while the Pro 580X scores 39,577. The delta is 93.7%, meaning the RX 5600M nearly doubles the Pro 580X’s Metal performance.

Q: Does the Pro 580X win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The Pro 580X wins 0 tests. The RX 5600M wins all three shared benchmarks: Geekbench Metal, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RX 5600M posts 59,589 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Pro 580X records 36,426. The RX 5600M leads by 63.6%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The RX 5600M ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 580X ranks in the 82nd percentile. Both are above average, but the RX 5600M sits higher.

Q: Which GPU has a closer rival set in the database?

A: The RX 5600M’s nearest rivals (Intel Arc A530M, AMD Radeon RX 6550M, NVIDIA RTX A2000, NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation) all fall within 1.4% of its average score. The Pro 580X’s nearest rivals (NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile, NVIDIA GeForce MX570, AMD Radeon Pro 575X) also cluster tightly, with deltas between 1.1% and -1%.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the stronger GPU in every measured category. Its 93.7% lead in Metal, 63.6% lead in OpenCL, and 21.8% lead in Vulkan leave no ambiguity. The average benchmark score difference (46,601 vs. 38,706) and the percentile gap (85th vs. 82nd) both favor the RX 5600M. For anyone choosing based on raw performance, the RX 5600M is the clear pick.

The Pro 580X, however, still holds value in specific contexts. Its 8 GB of memory exceeds the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, which may matter for workloads with large memory footprints. Its 256-bit memory bus also provides a wider interface, though the RX 5600M compensates with faster GDDR6 memory and higher bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs. 218.9 GB/s). The Pro 580X’s GCN 4.0 architecture and 14 nm process are older, but its 5.530 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is close to the RX 5600M’s 5.829 TFLOPS. Still, the benchmark results show that theoretical parity does not translate to real-world test scores.

For users prioritizing compute performance across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, the RX 5600M is the superior choice. For users who need more memory capacity and are willing to accept lower benchmark scores, the Pro 580X remains an option. The recorded data does not support any scenario where the Pro 580X outperforms the RX 5600M in the shared tests.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 580X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 218.9 GB/s. Despite the Pro 580X’s larger memory pool and wider bus, the RX 5600M’s faster memory type and higher bandwidth give it a data throughput advantage.

Clock speeds also differ. The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz, a boost clock of 1265 MHz, and a game clock of 1190 MHz. The Pro 580X has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, with no game clock listed. Memory clocks differ as well: the RX 5600M runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the Pro 580X runs at 1710 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective).

Pixel and texture rates vary. The RX 5600M achieves 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s, while the Pro 580X achieves 38.40 GPixel/s and 172.8 GTexel/s. The RX 5600M’s pixel rate is more than double, though texture rates are closer. FP32 performance is similar: 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M versus 5.530 TFLOPS for the Pro 580X. FP16 differs notably: the RX 5600M offers 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 580X offers 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Power consumption and interfaces also differ. The RX 5600M has a TDP of 150 W, while the Pro 580X has a TDP of 185 W. The RX 5600M uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the Pro 580X uses Apple MPX. Display outputs differ: the Pro 580X lists 2x HDMI 2.0b, while the RX 5600M lists “Portable Device Dependent.” Both are end-of-life products, with the RX 5600M released on 2020-07-06 and the Pro 580X on 2019-03-17.

Architecture Differences

The RX 5600M is built on the Navi 10 chip using RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The Pro 580X uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The process node difference is substantial: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which explains the RX 5600M’s higher transistor count despite a similar die size.

Shading units and texture mapping units are identical: both have 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs. ROPs differ, with the RX 5600M featuring 64 ROPs versus 32 on the Pro 580X. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The RX 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 580X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 5600M’s newer architecture brings a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

The RX 5600M belongs to the Radeon RX 5000 series with the Navi Mobile generation, while the Pro 580X belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series) generation. The RX 5600M’s predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile, while the Pro 580X has no listed predecessor. Both are end-of-life, but the RX 5600M’s RDNA architecture is newer and more efficient, as reflected in its lower TDP (150 W vs. 185 W) and higher transistor density.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600M wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its strongest relative performance is in Geekbench Metal, where it leads by 93.7%. This makes it the clear choice for Metal-based workloads, such as macOS graphics tasks or applications using Apple’s API. Its OpenCL lead of 63.6% also positions it well for general-purpose compute that relies on OpenCL. Even in Vulkan, where the gap narrows to 21.8%, the RX 5600M remains ahead.

The RX 5600M also wins on technical merits that support its benchmark dominance. Its 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, 64 ROPs, and 80.96 GPixel/s pixel rate all exceed the Pro 580X. The 7 nm process enables a higher transistor density and lower power draw, which may translate to better thermal behavior in constrained environments. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides a newer bus standard compared to Apple MPX.

The Pro 580X wins in areas not covered by benchmark scores. Its 8 GB memory capacity is 2 GB larger than the RX 5600M’s 6 GB, which could be decisive for workloads that exceed 6 GB of VRAM. Its 256-bit bus width is wider, though the RX 5600M’s bandwidth advantage (288.0 vs. 218.9 GB/s) mitigates this. The Pro 580X also has a higher base clock (1100 MHz vs. 1035 MHz), though its boost clock is lower (1200 MHz vs. 1265 MHz). For users specifically targeting large memory footprints, the Pro 580X offers a capacity edge, but the benchmark data shows the RX 5600M wins all performance tests.

In summary, the RX 5600M is the winner for raw speed, API compatibility, and efficiency. The Pro 580X is the winner for memory capacity and bus width, with no benchmark victories to its name. The database leaves little room for debate: the RX 5600M is the superior performer, and the Pro 580X’s only advantages are structural, not performance-based.