AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs AMD Radeon R9 370X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a stark picture: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins all three shared head-to-head tests, and it does so by decisive margins. The R9 370X fails to secure a single victory across the comparison suite. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro W5500 scores 42021 against the R9 370X’s 9018, a delta of -78.5% from the older card’s perspective. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in compute throughput on a modern API.

Geekbench Metal shows a similarly lopsided result. The Pro W5500 posts 54302, while the R9 370X manages only 12676, a -76.7% difference. For anyone using Metal-accelerated applications, this is the single most relevant number on the page. The R9 370X’s GCN 1.0 architecture was never designed for Apple’s modern compute stacks, and the data reflects that fundamental mismatch. The Pro W5500’s RDNA 1.0 silicon, by contrast, handles Metal workloads with roughly four times the raw score.

The OpenCL result is comparatively closer, but still one-sided. The Pro W5500 scores 45615 versus the R9 370X’s 25893, a -43.2% delta. OpenCL is the most legacy-friendly of the three APIs tested, which explains why the older card performs relatively better here. Even so, the Pro W5500 holds a commanding 76% advantage in absolute terms. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the R9 370X sits at 15862, while the Pro W5500 sits at 15679 — a 1.2% difference in the R9 370X’s favor on aggregate, but that aggregate is skewed by the R9 370X’s lack of Passmark scores. The Pro W5500’s Passmark G3D score of 8978 and GPU compute score of 4804 are not present in the R9 370X’s data, so direct cross-card comparisons on those tests are impossible.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 370X’s only statistical advantage is its average benchmark score, which edges the Pro W5500 by 1.2% (15862 vs 15679). That is a thin reed to lean on, and it comes from the fact that the R9 370X only has three Geekbench results while the Pro W5500 has ten. In every shared test, the Pro W5500 wins outright. The R9 370X does not win a single head-to-head benchmark. So where does the older card actually win? It wins on compatibility with older software ecosystems. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support and Vulkan 1.2.170 API level mean it will run legacy titles and applications that never received RDNA optimizations. For a retro build or a budget secondary machine running decade-old games, the R9 370X is functional.

The Pro W5500 wins everywhere that modern compute matters. Its Vulkan 1.4 API support and DirectX 12 (12_1) make it the clear choice for current-generation workloads. The Metal score of 54302 suggests it is the superior option for macOS or any Metal-based rendering pipeline. The OpenCL score of 45615 indicates strong GPGPU performance for Blender, DaVinci Resolve, or scientific compute. The Pro W5500 also wins on efficiency: its 125 W TDP versus the R9 370X’s 180 W TDP, combined with higher performance, means it delivers more work per watt. The 7 nm process node versus 28 nm is the primary reason for that efficiency gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is vast. The R9 370X uses the Trinidad chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Pro W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip, built on RDNA 1.0, on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It crams 6,400 million transistors into a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving 40.5M transistors per mm² — more than three times the density. That is the fundamental story: the Pro W5500 is a modern chip, the R9 370X is a relic.

Clock speeds tell a similar tale. The R9 370X runs at a 980 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the Pro W5500 runs at 1744 MHz base and 1855 MHz boost. Nearly double the clocks, combined with a more efficient architecture, explains the massive performance delta. The Pro W5500 also has more shading units (1408 vs 1280), more TMUs (88 vs 80), and the same 32 ROPs. Its pixel rate of 59.36 GPixel/s and texture rate of 163.2 GTexel/s dwarf the R9 370X’s 32.96 GPixel/s and 82.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.224 TFLOPS versus 2.637 TFLOPS — roughly double.

Memory is another clear divergence. The R9 370X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro W5500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. Despite half the bus width, the Pro W5500’s faster GDDR6 (14 Gbps effective vs 5.6 Gbps) gives it 25% more bandwidth. The 8 GB capacity is also four times larger, which matters for modern textures and compute buffers. The Pro W5500 supports FP16 at 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1), while the R9 370X has no FP16 data listed. The Pro W5500 also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 370X uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Pro W5500 wins decisively. It scores 42021 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the R9 370X’s 9018, a -78.5% delta from the older card’s perspective. The Pro W5500 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 370X only supports 1.2.170.

Q: Is the R9 370X faster in any benchmark?

A: No. In the three shared head-to-head tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), the Pro W5500 wins all three. The R9 370X has zero wins in the head-to-head suite. Its only edge is a 1.2% higher average benchmark score, which is an artifact of having fewer tests.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro W5500 delivers 25% more bandwidth despite half the bus width.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Pro W5500 has a 125 W TDP and requires a 300 W PSU. The R9 370X has a 180 W TDP and requires a 450 W PSU. The Pro W5500 is also single-slot with a single 6-pin connector, while the R9 370X is dual-slot with two 6-pin connectors.

Q: Which card is better for Metal-based applications?

A: The Pro W5500 by a wide margin. It scores 54302 in Geekbench Metal versus the R9 370X’s 12676, a -76.7% gap. This suggests the Pro W5500 is far more capable in macOS or any Metal-accelerated workload.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R9 370X only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Pro W5500 has Vulkan 1.4 versus the R9 370X’s Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Specification | R9 370X | Pro W5500 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 980 MHz | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 5.6 Gbps effective | 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 80 | 88 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.96 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 82.40 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.637 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None listed | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 180 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DP 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-26 | 2020-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 399 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior card in every measurable head-to-head test. It wins Geekbench Metal by 76.7%, OpenCL by 43.2%, and Vulkan by 78.5%. It has double the FP32 compute, 25% more memory bandwidth, four times the VRAM, and a 55 W lower TDP. The Pro W5500 is also built on a 7 nm process with over twice the transistor density, which explains its efficiency and performance advantages. For anyone choosing between these two for modern workloads — be it Metal-based rendering, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan games — the Pro W5500 is the only rational pick.

The R9 370X’s case rests entirely on legacy compatibility. Its GCN 1.0 architecture and older API support (DirectX 11_1, Vulkan 1.2.170) make it suitable for running older software that never received RDNA optimizations. Its 2 GB of VRAM is a hard limit for modern textures, but for a retro gaming rig or a secondary machine running decade-old titles, it will still function. Its 180 W TDP and dual-slot design are also less practical than the Pro W5500’s 125 W single-slot form factor.

The aggregate benchmark scores are nearly identical — 15862 for the R9 370X versus 15679 for the Pro W5500, a 1.2% difference — but that figure is misleading. The R9 370X’s average is computed from only three Geekbench tests, while the Pro W5500 includes Passmark DirectX, G2D, and G3D results. In the tests where both cards appear, the Pro W5500 wins every time. If you need a modern workstation GPU with strong compute, memory capacity, and API support, the Pro W5500 is the clear choice. If you need a cheap, old GPU for legacy software, the R9 370X exists — but the data gives no reason to prefer it over the Pro W5500 for any current task.