AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is the decisive winner in this comparison, delivering a Geekbench Metal score of 89,557 versus the W5500X’s 27,973 — a 68.8% advantage that places it in a completely different performance tier. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the W5700 sits at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, while the W5500X achieves the 73rd percentile, but the raw score gap is so large that the W5500X’s higher percentile ranking likely reflects its narrower benchmark coverage rather than genuine competitiveness. For any workload that stresses Metal performance, the W5700 is the only rational choice from this pairing.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 outperforms the W5500X by 68.8% in the sole head-to-head Geekbench Metal test, scoring 89,557 against 27,973. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap within the same RDNA 1.0 architecture family. The W5700’s raw score places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6700M, while the W5500X trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (0.3% ahead). In practical terms, the W5500X competes with 2015-era flagship gaming hardware, whereas the W5700 operates in the field of modern high-end mobile GPUs.

Who should pick the W5500X? Only scenarios where its lower power envelope and Apple MPX bus interface are non-negotiable would justify it, but even then, the performance penalty is severe. The W5500X draws 125 W with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the W5700 requires 205 W and a 550 W PSU. If system power budgets are extremely tight and Metal performance is secondary, the W5500X exists; otherwise, the W5700’s 8.663 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.398 TFLOPS FP32, and its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s, make it the superior engineering choice for compute-heavy tasks. The W5700 is end-of-life, as is the W5500X, but the W5700’s performance headroom means it will remain relevant longer in professional workflows.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 1.0 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but they diverge significantly in silicon scale. The W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die (40.5 million transistors per mm²), while the W5700 employs the Navi 10 chip with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die (41.0 million per mm²). The W5700 packs 61% more transistors, which translates directly into a larger execution engine: 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs versus the W5500X’s 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Clock speeds also favor the W5700, with a base of 1400 MHz and boost of 1880 MHz compared to the W5500X’s 1187 MHz base and 1757 MHz boost. Memory configurations reinforce the gap: both use 8 GB of GDDR6, but the W5700 runs a 256-bit bus delivering 448.0 GB/s, exactly double the W5500X’s 128-bit bus at 224.0 GB/s. The memory clock is identical at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), so the entire bandwidth advantage comes from the wider interface.

The W5700 also offers more display outputs: five mini-DisplayPort 1.4a ports plus one USB Type-C, versus the W5500X’s two HDMI 2.0b outputs. The bus interface differs fundamentally — the W5500X uses Apple MPX, while the W5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, making the latter more flexible for standard PC workstations. The W5700 has a predecessor listed (Radeon Pro Vega) and measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the W5500X has no listed dimensions. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the W5700’s FP16 performance of 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) on the W5500X suggests superior compute throughput for mixed-precision workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The W5700 wins every measurable benchmark category in this dataset. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 89,557, a 68.8% lead over the W5500X. It also has a suite of additional benchmarks that the W5500X lacks entirely: Geekbench OpenCL at 74,613, Geekbench Vulkan at 70,706, and a range of PassMark tests including G3D at 14,520 and GPU Compute at 6,495. These numbers indicate that the W5700 is not merely faster in one API — it sustains high performance across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, making it a versatile professional card.

Where could the W5500X claim a niche? Its 125 W TDP and suggested 300 W PSU mean it can slot into systems with weaker power delivery, and its Apple MPX interface targets specific Mac Pro configurations. The dual HDMI 2.0b outputs might suit setups that prioritize HDMI displays over DisplayPort. But in raw throughput, the W5500X produces 56.22 GPixel/s pixel rate and 168.7 GTexel/s texture rate, while the W5700 delivers 120.3 GPixel/s and 270.7 GTexel/s — both roughly double. The FP32 gap is 5.398 TFLOPS versus 8.663 TFLOPS, a 60.5% advantage for the W5700. There is no benchmark in the FACT PACK where the W5500X wins, so any use-case split must rely on system integration constraints rather than performance.

For compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, the W5700’s higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, combined with doubled memory bandwidth, will reduce processing times substantially. For display-centric workloads with modest GPU demands, the W5500X’s lower power draw could be an advantage in thermally constrained chassis, but the performance penalty is steep.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench Metal score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 scores 89,557, which is 68.8% higher than the W5500X’s 27,973 in Geekbench Metal.

Q: How do these cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The W5700 provides 448.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, exactly double the W5500X’s 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, with both using 8 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The W5500X was released on December 10, 2019, and the W5700 on November 18, 2019.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W5500X has a 125 W TDP and a suggested 300 W PSU, while the W5700 has a 205 W TDP and a suggested 550 W PSU, with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the W5700 also has benchmarked OpenCL and Vulkan scores, while the W5500X only has a Metal score.

Q: Which card is closer to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti in performance?

A: The W5500X is 0.2% behind the GTX 980 Ti’s average score of 28,020, whereas the W5700 is far above that tier, sitting near the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile’s score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the dataset is Geekbench Metal, and it is a landslide. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 achieves a score of 89,557, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X manages just 27,973 — a delta of -68.8% for the W5500X. To contextualize this, consider the nearest rivals for each card. The W5500X’s score of 27,973 places it between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, 0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883, 0.3% behind). The W5700’s score of 89,557 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6700M (25,633). The deltaPct values confirm that the W5500X is a mid-range part, while the W5700 is a high-end performer.

The W5700’s additional benchmark results reinforce its dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 74,613, and in Vulkan, 70,706 — both roughly 2.7 times its Metal score, suggesting that Metal is not its strongest API. The PassMark suite shows a G3D score of 14,520 and a GPU Compute score of 6,495, with legacy DirectX tests ranging from 54 (DirectX 12) to 225 (DirectX 9). These numbers indicate consistent performance across generations of APIs, which is valuable for legacy software compatibility in professional environments.

The W5500X has no such additional benchmarks, limiting its verifiable performance to Metal alone. Its single score of 27,973 is therefore the only quantitative evidence of its capability, and even that pales next to the W5700’s lowest listed test (PassMark DirectX 12 at 54, which is a different metric and not directly comparable). The pixel rate comparison is stark: the W5700 fills 120.3 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s on the W5500X, and the texture rate is 270.7 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s. The W5700’s FP32 throughput of 8.663 TFLOPS is 60.5% above the W5500X’s 5.398 TFLOPS, and its FP16 of 17.33 TFLOPS doubles the W5500X’s 10.80 TFLOPS.

The architectural numbers explain the score gap. The W5700 has 2,304 shading units, 50% more than the W5500X’s 1,536, and its 64 ROPs double the W5500X’s 32. The W5700’s boost clock of 1880 MHz is 123 MHz higher than the W5500X’s 1757 MHz, and its base clock of 1400 MHz is 213 MHz higher. With a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, the W5700’s memory subsystem can feed its larger shader array far more effectively. The transistor counts tell the story: 10,300 million on Navi 10 versus 6,400 million on Navi 14, a 61% increase that directly enables the W5700’s performance advantage. The W5700 is not just a faster W5500X — it is a fundamentally larger chip designed for a higher performance class, and the benchmark data confirms that positioning without exception.