AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5300M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M are two mobile workstation GPUs from different eras of AMD’s product stack. Based on the available benchmark data, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the clear performance leader, winning all three head-to-head tests by a substantial margin. The Radeon Pro 450, however, holds a slightly higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (49th vs. 48th), which reflects its closer competition in the aggregate scoring pool. The data indicates a generational leap in compute capability, memory bandwidth, and architectural efficiency for the newer part, but the older card remains a viable entry-level option in its own right.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior choice for any workload that depends on raw GPU compute or graphics throughput. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,626 is roughly 2.6 times higher than the Radeon Pro 450’s 12,893, and its OpenCL and Vulkan results show similar dominance. For users running Metal-accelerated applications, the 5300M’s advantage is decisive. The Radeon Pro 450, conversely, offers a lower power envelope at 35 W versus 85 W, making it a more conservative option for thermally constrained systems. However, its performance ceiling is firmly below the 5300M in every measured test.

The percentile data complicates a simple "buy the newer one" narrative. The Radeon Pro 450 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the 5300M sits at the 48th. This means that despite the 5300M’s massive lead in absolute scores, its aggregate position relative to the entire GPU landscape is nearly identical. The 5300M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and GeForce GTX 870M, with average scores within 0.5% of its own. The Radeon Pro 450’s rivals—the Quadro K2200, GeForce MX350, and GTX 560 Ti—are similarly close, with deltas between 0.4% and 1.7%. In practical terms, both cards occupy a mid-range tier, but the 5300M does so with far more headroom in compute-heavy tasks.

For a user upgrading from an older Mac, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the data-backed pick. For a system where power draw is the limiting factor, the Radeon Pro 450’s 35 W TDP is a notable advantage, though the performance cost is steep.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5300M wins in every single benchmark category where both cards have comparable data. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 33,626 against 12,893, a delta of 61.7%. In OpenCL, the gap widens to 69.2%, with scores of 29,252 versus 9,002. The Vulkan test shows a 62.3% difference, with the 5300M hitting 27,912 against 10,518. There is no test in the head-to-head list where the Radeon Pro 450 comes out ahead. The wins column confirms this: the 5300M holds 3 wins, the 450 holds 0.

The Radeon Pro 450’s only qualitative advantage is its power profile. At 35 W, it draws less than half the power of the 5300M’s 85 W. This makes it a better fit for ultra-thin laptops or systems where cooling is minimal. Additionally, its memory clock is listed at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective, which is lower than the 5300M’s 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective, but the lower power draw may be preferable in battery-sensitive scenarios. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed, so no cost comparison is possible from the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip based on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro 5300M, by contrast, uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, resulting in 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The newer process node allows for over double the transistor count in a modestly larger die.

The compute configuration differs significantly. The 450 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 5300M doubles each of these: 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This explains the raw throughput advantages—the 5300M’s pixel rate is 40.00 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 100.0 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows suit: the 5300M delivers 3.200 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.400 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the 450 offers 1,024.0 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio).

Memory architecture also diverges. The 450 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The 5300M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth—more than double. The 5300M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 450 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. API support is broadly similar, with both offering DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the 5300M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, whereas the 450 is capped at Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has a higher average benchmark score of 10,804, compared to the Radeon Pro 5300M’s 10,013. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the different benchmark suites included in each card’s data set.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro 5300M faster in Metal workloads?

A: Yes. In Geekbench Metal, the 5300M scores 33,626 versus 12,893 for the 450, a 61.7% advantage.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W, while the Radeon Pro 5300M has a TDP of 85 W. The 5300M draws more power but also delivers substantially higher performance.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Radeon Pro 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6, double the 2 GB of GDDR5 found on the Radeon Pro 450.

Q: How does the transistor density compare?

A: The 5300M’s 7 nm process yields 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, versus 24.4 million on the 450’s 14 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Geekbench Metal, where the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 33,626 against the Radeon Pro 450’s 12,893. This 61.7% delta is the largest relative gap in the three tests, and it underscores the 5300M’s strength in Apple’s preferred graphics API. The OpenCL test shows an even larger absolute difference: 29,252 versus 9,002, a 69.2% deficit for the 450. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose compute, and the 5300M’s 3.2 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the 450’s 1,024 GFLOPS explains the chasm. The Vulkan result, 27,912 versus 10,518, is a 62.3% gap, nearly matching the Metal delta.

These numbers align with the architectural differences. The 5300M’s doubled shading unit count and doubled ROP count directly translate to higher fill rates and shader performance. Its memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s removes a major bottleneck for texture-heavy workloads. The 450, despite its lower specs, still posts respectable scores that place it near the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761 average, 0.4% delta) and GeForce MX350 (10,883 average, -0.7% delta). The 5300M, meanwhile, trades blows with the Quadro K5100M (10,043 average, -0.3% delta) and GTX 870M (9,959 average, 0.5% delta), showing that its aggregate standing is comparable even if its peak performance is far higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node changes from 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) to 7 nm (TSMC), with transistor counts rising from 3,000 million to 6,400 million. Die size grows from 123 mm² to 158 mm², but transistor density improves from 24.4M per mm² to 40.5M per mm². Clocks differ: the 450 lists only a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the 5300M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 1250 MHz, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity doubles from 2 GB GDDR5 to 4 GB GDDR6, though the bus width remains 128 bit. Bandwidth jumps from 81.28 GB/s to 192.0 GB/s. The compute units scale up: shading units go from 640 to 1,280, TMUs from 40 to 80, and ROPs from 16 to 32. Pixel rate rises from 12.80 GPixel/s to 40.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 32.00 GTexel/s to 100.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance leaps from 1,024.0 GFLOPS to 3.200 TFLOPS, while FP16 goes from 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) to 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1). The TDP increases from 35 W to 85 W, and the bus interface upgrades from PCIe 3.0 x8 to PCIe 4.0 x8. DirectX support improves from 12_0 to 12_1, and Vulkan from 1.3 to 1.4. The 450 uses an MXM module slot, while the 5300M’s slot width is not specified, but it lists no power connectors. Both cards are end-of-life, with release dates of late 2016 and late 2019 respectively.