AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the two GPUs depending on the API tested. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 takes two of the three head-to-head comparisons, but the AMD Radeon RX 5600M secures the most decisive win in the Metal benchmark.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M scores 76653 against the Pro Vega 64's 71868. That is a 6.2% advantage for the newer mobile chip. This result is notable because it shows the RDNA architecture's efficiency in Apple's Metal API, despite the Pro Vega 64 having a much larger memory bus and higher transistor count. The RX 5600M's win here is its only head-to-head victory, but it is a meaningful one for applications that rely on Metal.

The Pro Vega 64 responds strongly in the other two tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro Vega 64 scores 71094, which is 19.3% higher than the RX 5600M's 59589. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan: the Pro Vega 64 reaches 74174, while the RX 5600M manages only 48843. That represents a 51.9% lead for the Vega part, the single largest delta in any benchmark between these two cards. The OpenCL result shows a solid but not overwhelming advantage, while the Vulkan result is a dominant performance gap.

Looking at the overall averages, the Pro Vega 64 holds an average benchmark score of 72379, placing it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The RX 5600M's average is 46601, which puts it in the 85th percentile. The raw average difference is substantial, but it is important to note that the RX 5600M's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1320, a test that the Pro Vega 64 does not have a recorded result for. This skews the average comparison, as the Pro Vega 64's average is based entirely on its three Geekbench results.

The nearest rivals for the Pro Vega 64 reinforce its positioning. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 72098, a mere 0.4% behind. The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition scores 73370, which is 1.4% ahead of the Pro Vega 64. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 71768, just 0.9% behind. These rivals show that the Pro Vega 64 sits in a tight cluster of high-performance cards from its era.

For the RX 5600M, its nearest rivals tell a different story. The Intel Arc A530M matches it almost exactly at 46614, a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 46702, which is 0.2% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 46043, 1.2% behind, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45972, 1.4% behind. The RX 5600M is thus positioned in a competitive mid-range cluster, far from the performance tier occupied by the Pro Vega 64.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip based on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This node difference is significant: the smaller process allows the RX 5600M to achieve a much higher transistor density of 41.0M per mm², compared to the Pro Vega 64's 25.3M per mm².

The transistor counts differ as well. The Pro Vega 64 packs 12,500 million transistors on a die size of 495 mm². The RX 5600M has 10,300 million transistors on a much smaller die of 251 mm². Despite having fewer transistors, the RX 5600M's smaller die and denser packing reflect the architectural efficiency gains of RDNA over GCN.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Pro Vega 64 uses 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The Pro Vega 64's memory bandwidth is a major advantage, and it is likely a key factor in its Vulkan and OpenCL performance. The memory clock speeds also differ: the Pro Vega 64 runs at 1572 Mbps effective, while the RX 5600M runs at 12 Gbps effective.

The compute resources show a clear disparity. The Pro Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro Vega 64's raw compute throughput is nearly double: 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M. FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with the Pro Vega 64 at 22.12 TFLOPS and the RX 5600M at 11.66 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Pro Vega 64 has a base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost clock of 1350 MHz. The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz, a game clock of 1190 MHz, and a boost clock of 1265 MHz. The RX 5600M's clocks are lower, but its architectural efficiency compensates in certain workloads, as evidenced by its Metal win.

The power envelopes differ substantially. The Pro Vega 64 is rated at 250 W TDP, while the RX 5600M is rated at 150 W TDP. Both are integrated GPU designs with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The RX 5600M's lower power draw is consistent with its mobile positioning.

The bus interfaces also differ: the Pro Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The RX 5600M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 64 supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has an average benchmark score of 72379, placing it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M has an average score of 46601, placing it in the 85th percentile.

Q: Why does the RX 5600M win in Geekbench Metal despite the Pro Vega 64's higher raw specs?

A: The RX 5600M scores 76653 in Geekbench Metal, 6.2% higher than the Pro Vega 64's 71868. The RDNA 1.0 architecture appears more efficient in Metal workloads, despite having fewer shading units and lower clock speeds.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Pro Vega 64 scores 74174 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 51.9% higher than the RX 5600M's 48843. This is the largest delta in any shared benchmark.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: For the Pro Vega 64, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal at 72098 (0.4% behind), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6650M at 71768 (0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73370 (1.4% ahead). For the RX 5600M, the Intel Arc A530M matches at 46614 (0% delta), with the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46702 (0.2% ahead) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46043 (1.2% behind).

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Pro Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Pro Vega 64 was released in 2017, while the RX 5600M was released in 2020.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is a key differentiator: the Pro Vega 64 uses 14 nm from GlobalFoundries, while the RX 5600M uses 7 nm from TSMC. The Pro Vega 64 has a die size of 495 mm² with 12,500 million transistors, while the RX 5600M has a die size of 251 mm² with 10,300 million transistors. Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² for the Pro Vega 64 versus 41.0M per mm² for the RX 5600M.

Clock speeds differ across the board. The Pro Vega 64 has a base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost of 1350 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 5600M has a base of 1035 MHz, a game clock of 1190 MHz, and a boost of 1265 MHz. Memory clocks are 1572 Mbps effective for the Pro Vega 64 and 12 Gbps effective for the RX 5600M.

Memory specifications are starkly different: 16 GB HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus versus 6 GB GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth is 402.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. The Pro Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the RX 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rates are 86.40 GPixel/s for the Pro Vega 64 and 80.96 GPixel/s for the RX 5600M. Texture rates are 345.6 GTexel/s versus 182.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 11.06 TFLOPS versus 5.829 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 22.12 TFLOPS versus 11.66 TFLOPS.

TDP is 250 W for the Pro Vega 64 and 150 W for the RX 5600M. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro Vega 64 and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 5600M. Vulkan support differs: 1.3 for the Pro Vega 64 and 1.4 for the RX 5600M. The release dates are 2017 for the Pro Vega 64 and 2020 for the RX 5600M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict for raw compute performance: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is the stronger GPU in OpenCL and Vulkan, with a 19.3% and 51.9% advantage respectively. Its 250 W TDP, 16 GB HBM2 memory, and 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a higher performance tier, as reflected by its 91st percentile ranking versus the RX 5600M's 85th percentile.

However, the RX 5600M should not be dismissed. Its 6.2% win in Geekbench Metal demonstrates that RDNA 1.0 has a real efficiency advantage in that API. Its lower 150 W TDP and smaller 251 mm² die make it a more power-efficient design. The RX 5600M's 7 nm process and PCIe 4.0 interface are newer technologies, and its Vulkan 1.4 support is more recent than the Pro Vega 64's Vulkan 1.3.

For users prioritizing raw throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Pro Vega 64 is the clear choice. Its memory bandwidth advantage (402.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s) and nearly double the FP32 throughput are decisive. For users working primarily in Metal environments, the RX 5600M offers a measurable performance edge, and it does so at a lower power draw.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, making it the better option for compute-heavy applications that leverage those APIs. Its 51.9% Vulkan lead is the standout result, suggesting that GCN 5.0's architecture maps more effectively to Vulkan's low-level control. The 19.3% OpenCL advantage further supports this. The Pro Vega 64's 16 GB HBM2 memory and 2048-bit bus provide substantial bandwidth for large datasets, and its 250 W TDP indicates a part designed for sustained high performance rather than portability.

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins in Metal, making it the better option for macOS-centric workflows or any application built around Apple's graphics API. Its 76653 Metal score is the highest recorded benchmark between the two cards. The RX 5600M's lower 150 W TDP and smaller die size make it a more practical choice for thin-and-light systems. Its 6 GB GDDR6 memory is less capacious, but for Metal workloads the data shows it is sufficient to outperform the Pro Vega 64. The RX 5600M also brings newer platform features with PCIe 4.0 and Vulkan 1.4 support.

For mixed workloads, the choice depends on API usage. If the software stack leans on OpenCL or Vulkan, the Pro Vega 64 is the superior part. If Metal is the primary API, the RX 5600M is the better fit. The benchmark record shows no single GPU dominates across all tests, so the decision should be driven by the specific application environment.