Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs Pro 455
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 455 with Radeon RX 560X Mobile, including specs and performance data.
560X Mobile outperforms Pro 455 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 593 | 496 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.51 | 11.96 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 October 2016 (9 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 855 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1202 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.04 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.313 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 92.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 35
+2.9%
| 34
−2.9%
|
| 4K | 22
−22.7%
| 27−30
+22.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
−128%
|
41
+128%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−42.1%
|
50−55
+42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−53.3%
|
23
+53.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
−66.7%
|
30
+66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−57.6%
|
52
+57.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−42.1%
|
50−55
+42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
17
+13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−62.5%
|
39
+62.5%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−43.5%
|
66
+43.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−52.9%
|
52
+52.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−54.5%
|
34
+54.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−85.2%
|
50
+85.2%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−20.5%
|
90−95
+20.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−33.3%
|
44
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−42.1%
|
50−55
+42.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 145
+18.9%
|
122
−18.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 67
−6%
|
71
+6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−50%
|
36
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4.5%
|
44
−4.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−44.1%
|
49
+44.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−40.9%
|
31
+40.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
−50%
|
36
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−55.6%
|
42
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
−44%
|
36
+44%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−20.5%
|
90−95
+20.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−18.2%
|
39
+18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
13
−15.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
−6.5%
|
66
+6.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−37.5%
|
33
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−11.8%
|
38
+11.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−57.1%
|
22
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−20.5%
|
90−95
+20.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+39.4%
|
33
−39.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−32.8%
|
75−80
+32.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−23.8%
|
50−55
+23.8%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−31.6%
|
100−105
+31.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−39.4%
|
45−50
+39.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 23
−60.9%
|
35−40
+60.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
This is how Pro 455 and RX 560X Mobile compete in popular games:
- Pro 455 is 3% faster in 1080p
- RX 560X Mobile is 23% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Pro 455 is 39% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 560X Mobile is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 455 performs better in 4 tests (6%)
- RX 560X Mobile performs better in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.47 | 10.05 |
| Recency | 30 October 2016 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Pro 455 has 86% lower power consumption.
RX 560X Mobile, on the other hand, has a 35% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX 560X Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 455 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 455 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 560X Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
