AMD Radeon R9 370X vs AMD Radeon RX 5500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, which wins all three shared benchmark tests. The R9 370X does not secure a win in any head-to-head comparison. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Metal, where the RX 5500M scores 50,359 against the R9 370X's 12,676, a difference of 74.8 percent. This is a substantial margin, indicating a generational leap in graphics API performance under Metal.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a similar story. The RX 5500M posts 35,693 points, while the R9 370X manages only 9,018 points. That represents a 74.7 percent deficit for the older card, nearly identical to the Metal gap. The consistency of these two results suggests the RX 5500M's architectural improvements benefit modern, low-level APIs equally, rather than favoring one specific interface.

The closest contest is in Geekbench OpenCL. Here the RX 5500M scores 38,725, and the R9 370X reaches 25,893. The RX 5500M leads by 33.1 percent. While still a clear win, this narrower margin hints that raw compute-oriented workloads narrow the gap somewhat, likely because the R9 370X's older GCN design retains competitive shader throughput in certain parallel tasks. Nevertheless, the RX 5500M remains ahead across every measured workload.

Looking at average benchmark scores from the wider database, the pattern shifts slightly. The R9 370X has an average benchmark score of 15,862, while the RX 5500M averages 13,356. This inversion occurs because the RX 5500M's dataset includes additional Passmark tests, which drag its average down, whereas the R9 370X is measured only on the three Geekbench tests where it performs relatively better. This is a reminder that average scores depend heavily on the test suite composition.

The RX 5500M's percentile rank among all GPUs is 54, compared to the R9 370X's 58. Again, the broader test coverage for the RX 5500M affects this ranking. In the shared tests, the RX 5500M is unequivocally faster, but its overall standing in the database is pulled lower by Passmark results that include legacy DirectX 9 and 2D workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to entirely different architectural eras. The R9 370X uses the Trinidad chip built on GCN 1.0, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm node. This process shrink is central to the performance and efficiency differences observed.

Transistor counts reflect the density advantage of the newer node. The R9 370X packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 5500M contains 6,400 million transistors on a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 5500M crams more than twice the transistors into roughly three-quarters of the silicon area.

Clock speeds also favor the newer card. The R9 370X has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The RX 5500M starts at 1375 MHz base, boosts to 1645 MHz, and carries a game clock of 1448 MHz. Higher clocks plus a more efficient architecture explain much of the RX 5500M's superior frame rates and compute throughput.

Memory subsystems differ in capacity, type, and bandwidth. The R9 370X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 128-bit bus, yet achieves 224.0 GB/s thanks to faster memory running at 1750 MHz with an effective data rate of 14 Gbps. The RX 5500M offers double the capacity and higher bandwidth despite half the bus width.

Shader resources are broadly similar in count but not in efficiency. The R9 370X has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 5500M's modest numerical advantage in shaders and TMUs is amplified by its higher clocks and RDNA design, leading to significantly higher fill rates: 52.64 GPixel/s pixel rate and 144.8 GTexel/s texture rate versus 32.96 GPixel/s and 82.40 GTexel/s on the R9 370X.

Compute performance follows the same trend. The R9 370X delivers 2.637 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The RX 5500M reaches 4.632 TFLOPS FP32, nearly 76 percent higher. The RX 5500M also supports FP16 compute at 9.265 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a capability absent from the R9 370X's specifications.

Power consumption is dramatically different. The R9 370X is rated at 180 W TDP and requires dual 6-pin power connectors plus a 450 W suggested power supply. The RX 5500M is rated at 85 W TDP with no power connectors, as it is designed for mobile platforms. This efficiency gap is one of the most striking differentiators, enabled by the 7 nm process and RDNA architecture.

API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The R9 370X supports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_1 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 5500M's newer API versions align with modern game requirements, while the R9 370X may struggle with titles expecting newer feature sets.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500M wins in virtually every performance scenario measured. Its advantages in Metal and Vulkan, both around 75 percent, make it the clear choice for applications leveraging these APIs, including many modern games and macOS-compatible workloads. Its OpenCL lead of 33.1 percent confirms strong compute performance for tasks like rendering, physics simulation, and machine learning inference.

The RX 5500M's larger 4 GB frame buffer and higher bandwidth make it better suited for higher-resolution textures and modern game assets. The R9 370X's 2 GB capacity is a limitation for contemporary titles. The RX 5500M also supports FP16 compute, which can accelerate certain AI and graphics workloads that use half-precision arithmetic.

The R9 370X's only practical advantages lie outside raw speed. Its 256-bit memory bus, while slower overall, might appeal in legacy scenarios where memory latency patterns favor wider buses. Its dual-slot desktop form factor with 2x DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs offers flexible multi-monitor setups, whereas the RX 5500M's display outputs are portable device dependent. The R9 370X also has a longer track record in the database, with end-of-life status dating to 2015, meaning driver maturity for older operating systems is established.

For a desktop user building a legacy system or needing specific DVI outputs, the R9 370X could still serve. For anyone prioritizing performance, efficiency, modern API support, or mobile deployment, the RX 5500M is the superior part. The RX 5500M's 85 W TDP versus 180 W means it can be deployed in thinner laptops without the power delivery requirements of a desktop card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M scores 50,359 versus the R9 370X's 12,676, a 74.8 percent advantage for the RX 5500M.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 5500M leads with 38,725 points against 25,893 for the R9 370X, a 33.1 percent margin.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 370X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The R9 370X has a 180 W TDP and requires dual 6-pin connectors plus a 450 W power supply. The RX 5500M has an 85 W TDP and requires no power connectors, reflecting its mobile design.

Q: Do the cards differ in transistor density?

A: Yes. The R9 370X has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die (13.2M per mm²), while the RX 5500M has 6,400 million on 158 mm² (40.5M per mm²).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 370X | AMD Radeon RX 5500M |

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

| 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 | 1375 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1645 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 1448 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1400 MHz, 5.6 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 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 | 52.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 82.40 GTexel/s | 144.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.637 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 180 W | 85 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | None |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-26 | 2019-10-06 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | None |