AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 and AMD Radeon Pro 575X are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Benchmark data shows the Pro 5300 wins the majority of head-to-head tests, taking two out of three, with a decisive lead in compute workloads. However, the Pro 575X demonstrates a clear advantage in Vulkan graphics performance, making the choice between them dependent on the specific application environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant victory for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 38,747 against the Pro 575X's 34,773. This represents an 11.4% performance advantage, the largest margin between the two cards in any benchmark. This substantial lead indicates a major difference in raw compute throughput under the OpenCL API, suggesting the newer architecture handles general-purpose GPU workloads more efficiently.

In the Geekbench Metal test, the Pro 5300 again takes the win, scoring 48,070 compared to 44,655 for the Pro 575X. The 7.6% delta demonstrates a consistent advantage in Apple's graphics API, which is critical for Mac-based workflows. This is the highest raw score recorded for either card, showing that the Pro 5300 excels in Metal-optimized applications, which are prevalent in creative and professional software on macOS.

The one benchmark where the AMD Radeon Pro 575X fights back is Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 37,919 versus the Pro 5300's 35,793. The 5.6% margin in favor of the older card is notable because it inverts the expected performance hierarchy. This suggests that while the Pro 5300 is generally faster, the Pro 575X's GCN architecture has specific strengths in Vulkan workloads, possibly due to driver optimizations or hardware scheduling differences.

The average benchmark score across all three tests reinforces the Pro 5300's overall superiority, with an average of 40,870 compared to 39,116 for the Pro 575X. This is a 4.5% aggregate advantage, confirming that the Pro 5300 is the more balanced performer. It is notably both cards hold the same 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar tier of overall performance despite their architectural differences.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 is the clear choice for compute-heavy and Metal-based workloads. Its 11.4% OpenCL advantage makes it the better option for tasks like video rendering, scientific simulation, and any application that leverages general-purpose GPU compute. The 7.6% Metal win further solidifies its position as the preferred card for macOS users running Metal-accelerated creative applications, such as photo editing, 3D modeling, and video post-production. The data indicates that if a workflow relies on these APIs, the Pro 5300 delivers measurably better performance.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X, despite losing the overall benchmark war, has a specific and valuable niche in Vulkan-based applications. Its 5.6% Vulkan win suggests that games and applications built on this cross-platform graphics API will run noticeably better on the older card. This could be relevant for users running Vulkan titles or using Vulkan-based compute frameworks, where the Pro 575X's architecture proves more responsive. Additionally, the Pro 575X offers higher raw texture throughput at 140.3 GTexel/s compared to 132.0 GTexel/s for the Pro 5300, which may benefit certain fill-rate-limited scenarios.

For users prioritizing a balanced profile, the Pro 5300 is the safer bet. It wins the two most common professional APIs (Metal and OpenCL) and has the higher average score. The Pro 575X should only be considered if Vulkan performance is the absolute priority, as its strengths do not extend to other benchmark categories.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different process nodes and architectures, explaining their divergent performance profiles. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 575X uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process node difference is substantial, giving the Pro 5300 a significant efficiency and density advantage.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this generational leap. The Pro 5300 packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The Pro 575X, meanwhile, has 5,700 million transistors spread across a much larger 232 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 24.6M per mm². This means the Pro 5300 fits more transistors into less space, enabling higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The Pro 5300 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 575X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 256-bit bus, achieving 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the Pro 5300's faster GDDR6 memory provides slightly more bandwidth, showcasing the efficiency gains of the newer memory standard.

Clock speeds are another differentiator, though the Pro 575X has no listed base or boost clocks. The Pro 5300 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and boosts to 1650 MHz, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The Pro 575X's memory runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), which is significantly slower, contributing to its bandwidth deficit despite the wider bus.

The compute unit configurations show a trade-off between quantity and efficiency. The Pro 575X has more shading units (2048 vs 1280), more TMUs (128 vs 80), and the same number of ROPs (32). However, the Pro 5300's higher clocks and newer architecture allow it to achieve comparable or better performance. The Pro 5300 delivers 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 575X manages 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Pro 575X has slightly higher FP32 throughput, but the Pro 5300's FP16 performance is nearly double, which is critical for AI and machine learning workloads.

Power consumption heavily favors the Pro 5300, with a TDP of 85 W compared to 150 W for the Pro 575X. The Pro 5300 also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Pro 575X is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro 5300 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, giving the newer card a slight API feature advantage.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 is the superior overall GPU. It wins the majority of benchmarks, has a higher average score, and does so while consuming nearly half the power of the Pro 575X. The Pro 5300's wins in Metal and OpenCL cover the most relevant APIs for professional Mac users, and its FP16 performance is dramatically better, making it the obvious choice for modern compute tasks. The 7 nm process node and RDNA architecture provide a forward-looking foundation that the older GCN-based Pro 575X simply cannot match.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X is not without merit, but its appeal is narrow. Its Vulkan win is real and measurable, and its higher FP32 throughput and texture rate give it specific technical advantages. However, these strengths do not translate into an overall win in any aggregate metric. The Pro 575X's higher TDP and older process node also make it less efficient, which is a practical concern for mobile workstations where battery life and thermals matter.

For most users, the choice should be the AMD Radeon Pro 5300. It offers better performance in the most common professional APIs, superior efficiency, and a more modern feature set. The only scenario where the Pro 575X makes sense is if a user's workflow is exclusively Vulkan-based and they cannot tolerate the 5.6% performance deficit in that specific API. Otherwise, the Pro 5300's 7.6% Metal win and 11.4% OpenCL win make it the data-backed recommendation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has a higher average benchmark score of 40,870, compared to 39,116 for the AMD Radeon Pro 575X.

Q: By how much does the Pro 5300 win in OpenCL?

A: The Pro 5300 scores 38,747 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.4% higher than the Pro 575X's score of 34,773.

Q: Does the older Pro 575X win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Pro 575X wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 37,919, beating the Pro 5300's 35,793 by 5.6%.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has a TDP of 85 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X has a TDP of 150 W.

Q: How do their FP16 performance levels compare?

A: The Pro 5300 delivers 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 575X delivers 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), making the Pro 5300 nearly twice as fast in FP16 workloads.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The Pro 5300 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro 575X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 | AMD Radeon Pro 575X |

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

| Chip | Navi 14 | Ellesmere |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 80 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 35.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 132.0 GTexel/s | 140.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.224 TFLOPS | 4.489 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 150 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2020-08-03 | 2019-03-17 |