AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a split decision between these two AMD workstation GPUs, with the newer Radeon Pro 5300 taking two of three benchmark wins, but the older Radeon Pro 575 scoring a notable victory in Vulkan. In Geekbench Metal, the Radeon Pro 5300 scores 48,070 against 46,192 for the Pro 575, a 4.1% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro 5300 posts 38,747 versus 34,596, a commanding 12% lead. However, the tables turn in Geekbench Vulkan: the Pro 575 scores 37,878 against 35,793 for the Pro 5300, giving the older card a 5.5% edge. This Vulkan result is notable because it represents the only workload where the GCN 4.0 architecture outperforms the RDNA 1.0 part, suggesting that Vulkan optimized workloads can still extract strong performance from the older design.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Pro 5300 holds a slim overall advantage at 40,870 versus 39,555 for the Pro 575. That works out to roughly 3.3% better average performance, though both cards sit at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs — a tie in relative standing. The Pro 5300's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, posts an average score of 41,187, which is just 0.8% higher than the AMD card. Meanwhile, the Pro 575's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39,568, a virtual dead heat with a 0% delta. The Radeon Pro 580 appears in both cards' rival lists: it scores 40,318, coming in 1.4% above the Pro 5300 and 1.9% above the Pro 575.

The OpenCL result deserves particular attention. A 12% swing in favor of the Pro 5300 is substantial in the context of workstation workloads, where OpenCL acceleration remains common in productivity applications. The Pro 575's Vulkan win is narrower at 5.5%, but it demonstrates that architectural differences can flip results depending on the API. In aggregate, benchmark results indicate the Pro 5300 is the more consistent performer, with its two wins including the larger margin. The Pro 575's single win, while real, does not compensate for the double-digit deficit in OpenCL.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins 2 of 3 head-to-head benchmarks, taking Geekbench Metal by 4.1% and Geekbench OpenCL by 12%, while the Pro 575 wins Geekbench Vulkan by 5.5%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Pro 5300 averages 40,870 across benchmarks, while the Pro 575 averages 39,555. Both GPUs occupy the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they rank equally in overall standing despite the score difference.

Q: Is the Pro 575 competitive with the Pro 5300 in any API?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the Pro 575 scores 37,878 versus 35,793 for the Pro 5300, a 5.5% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the older card comes out ahead.

Q: What are the closest rival GPUs to these two cards?

A: For the Pro 5300, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti averages 41,187 (0.8% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 averages 40,377 (1.2% higher). For the Pro 575, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile averages 39,568 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X averages 39,116 (1.1% lower).

Q: How does the Pro 5300 compare to the AMD Radeon Pro 580?

A: The Radeon Pro 580 scores 40,318 on average, which is 1.4% above the Pro 5300 and 1.9% above the Pro 575. The Pro 580 appears in both cards' nearest rival lists.

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The Pro 5300 is significantly ahead, scoring 38,747 versus 34,596 for the Pro 575 — a 12% margin. This is the largest performance gap in any benchmark between the two cards.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced recommendation. For users prioritizing OpenCL and Metal workloads, the Radeon Pro 5300 is the stronger choice — its 12% OpenCL lead and 4.1% Metal lead provide tangible performance advantages in those APIs. The 5300 also delivers a better average benchmark score (40,870 vs. 39,555), making it the more balanced performer overall. However, the Pro 575's 5.5% Vulkan win means that Vulkan-centric applications may run better on the older card. Both GPUs sit at the 82nd percentile, so neither offers a dramatic class advantage over the other.

The Pro 5300 also benefits from being compared favorably against the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (0.8% behind) and RTX 5070 (1.2% ahead), suggesting it punches near those much newer parts. The Pro 575's closest rival is the RTX A500 Mobile at parity. For buyers who know their workload is Vulkan-heavy, the Pro 575's win in that specific test is worth considering. For everyone else, the data says the Pro 5300 is the safer pick: it wins more benchmarks, wins by larger margins, and posts a higher average score. The Pro 575 remains a viable option for legacy compatibility or Vulkan-specific pipelines, but benchmark results indicate the Pro 5300 is the superior all-around workstation GPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category, reflecting their generational gap. The Pro 5300 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Pro 575 uses 14 nm from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are close — 6,400 million for the Pro 5300 versus 5,700 million for the Pro 575 — but die size favors the newer card at 158 mm² against 232 mm². This yields a transistor density of 40.5M per mm² for the Pro 5300 versus 24.6M per mm² for the Pro 575. Clock speeds differ dramatically: the Pro 5300 has a 1000 MHz base clock and 1650 MHz boost, while the Pro 575 lists no base or boost clocks at all. Memory clocks also differ, with the Pro 5300 running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) for the Pro 575.

Memory configuration shows a trade-off: both have 4 GB, but the Pro 5300 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 224.0 GB/s, while the Pro 575 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 217.0 GB/s. The wider bus gives the Pro 575 a slight bandwidth deficit that the faster GDDR6 on the Pro 5300 overcomes. Shader configuration is more complex: the Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the Pro 5300 achieves a higher pixel rate at 52.80 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s, but the Pro 575 leads in texture rate at 140.3 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance slightly favors the Pro 575 at 4.489 TFLOPS against 4.224 TFLOPS. However, FP16 performance is a different story: the Pro 5300 reaches 8.448 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Pro 575 is capped at 4.489 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Pro 5300 has a TDP of 85 W and an IGP slot width, while the Pro 575 draws 150 W and uses an MXM Module form factor. Neither card has power connectors. The Pro 5300 suggests a 250 W PSU, while the Pro 575 lists no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Pro 5300 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro 575. Display outputs are minimal on both — "No outputs" for the Pro 5300 and "Portable Device Dependent" for the Pro 575. API support shows the Pro 5300 ahead with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is substantial. The Pro 5300 is built on RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, while the Pro 575 uses GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip. This represents a generational shift in AMD's GPU design philosophy. RDNA 1.0 was designed to improve instruction-level parallelism and reduce latency compared to GCN, which explains why the Pro 5300 achieves higher clock speeds (1650 MHz boost) despite having fewer shading units (1,280 vs. 2,048). The 7 nm process node at TSMC enables this efficiency gain, allowing the Pro 5300 to deliver comparable or better performance at 85 W versus 150 W for the Pro 575.

The memory architecture differs fundamentally as well. The Pro 5300 uses GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus, relying on high effective clock speeds (14 Gbps) to reach 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 575 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with lower effective clocks (6.8 Gbps), achieving 217.0 GB/s. This means the Pro 5300 gets more bandwidth from a narrower bus, a hallmark of RDNA's improved memory compression and efficiency. Both have 4 GB capacity, but the memory technology gap is significant for bandwidth-hungry workloads.

Compute capabilities show the architectural shift clearly. The Pro 575's GCN 4.0 architecture has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with FP32 and FP16 both at 4.489 TFLOPS. The Pro 5300's RDNA 1.0 architecture has fewer physical units (1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs) but achieves 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The doubled FP16 throughput on the Pro 5300 is a major architectural advantage for workloads that can use reduced precision. The Pro 5300 also supports newer API versions — Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, and DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0 — reflecting its later release (2020-08-03 versus 2017-06-04). Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Pro 5300's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides higher per-lane bandwidth than the Pro 575's PCIe 3.0 x16, though the older card has more total lanes. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has a listed predecessor or successor.