AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 5300 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 are two professional graphics cards from different architectural generations, and the benchmark data shows a clear split in their strengths. The Pro 5300, built on RDNA 1.0, takes the lead in OpenCL compute workloads, while the PRO W6400, based on RDNA 2.0, counters with a decisive win in Vulkan performance. Each card wins one head-to-head benchmark, making the choice between them dependent on the specific API and workload you prioritize.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most direct comparison comes from the two Geekbench tests where both cards were evaluated. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 38,747, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 trails at 35,027. That gives the Pro 5300 a 10.6% advantage, a meaningful margin for compute-oriented tasks that rely on OpenCL. This result aligns with the Pro 5300’s higher FP32 throughput of 4.224 TFLOPS versus the W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS, suggesting that raw shader performance translates directly into OpenCL gains.

However, the tables turn sharply in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39,286, beating the AMD Radeon Pro 5300’s 35,793 by 8.9%. This is a notable reversal, as the W6400 manages a higher score despite having fewer shading units (768 versus 1,280) and lower FP32 compute. The W6400’s newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, with its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware ray tracing cores, likely contributes to better Vulkan optimization and efficiency. The delta between the two cards in Vulkan is slightly smaller than the OpenCL gap, but the direction is unambiguous — if your software stack is Vulkan-based, the W6400 is the stronger performer.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 achieves an average benchmark score of 40,870, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187, just 0.8% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318, 1.4% lower). The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, posts an average score of 37,157, which is 80th percentile. Its nearest competitors are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, 0.9% higher) and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628, 1.3% higher). These figures show that the Pro 5300 sits in a higher overall performance tier, but the W6400 is far from a slouch, especially given its much lower power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations, and that distinction drives most of their behavioral differences. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on RDNA 2.0, manufactured on a more advanced 6 nm process. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 50.5M per mm². The process node shrink and denser packing give the W6400 a modern efficiency edge, though the Pro 5300 compensates with a larger chip.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational improvement. The Pro 5300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. The W6400 starts at 2039 MHz base and boosts to 2321 MHz, which is substantially higher. Even with fewer shaders, the W6400’s clocks help it close the compute gap, though it still falls short in raw FP32 output. Memory also differs: both have 4 GB of GDDR6, but the Pro 5300 uses a 128-bit bus delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 is limited to a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s. The W6400’s memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the Pro 5300’s 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus halves the bandwidth, which can hurt in memory-heavy scenes.

Feature support marks another major divergence. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing. The W6400 has 12 ray tracing cores; the Pro 5300 has none listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those APIs are on equal footing. The W6400 also includes 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the Pro 5300 has no display outputs at all, making it an IGP-style part for systems with separate display handling.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in use cases. Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 if your primary workloads are OpenCL-based compute tasks, where its 10.6% lead over the W6400 and higher average score (40,870 versus 37,157) give it a tangible edge. Its 128-bit memory bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth also make it better suited for large data transfers, and its 82nd percentile ranking places it above the W6400’s 80th in overall performance. The Pro 5300’s higher FP32 and FP16 throughput (4.224 TFLOPS and 8.448 TFLOPS, respectively) reinforces this choice for number-crunching applications.

Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 if Vulkan performance is your priority. Its 8.9% win in the Vulkan benchmark, combined with DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing hardware, makes it the more future-proof option for modern graphics APIs. The W6400 also draws far less power — 50 W versus the Pro 5300’s 85 W — and runs at much higher clocks, which can translate to better thermal behavior in constrained environments. For professional visualization or gaming-adjacent tasks that leverage Vulkan, the W6400 is the stronger candidate despite its lower overall average score.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every core specification. The Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0 at 7 nm, while the W6400 uses Navi 24 on RDNA 2.0 at 6 nm. Transistor counts are 6,400 million versus 5,400 million, and die sizes are 158 mm² versus 107 mm². Transistor density favors the W6400 at 50.5M / mm² compared to 40.5M / mm² for the Pro 5300. Clock speeds favor the W6400 significantly: base 2039 MHz versus 1000 MHz, boost 2321 MHz versus 1650 MHz, and memory 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory bandwidth is a major difference: the Pro 5300 offers 224.0 GB/s on a 128-bit bus, while the W6400 offers 128.0 GB/s on a 64-bit bus, though both have 4 GB of GDDR6. The Pro 5300 has more compute units — 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — versus the W6400’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate favors the W6400 at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors the Pro 5300 at 132.0 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.224 TFLOPS for the Pro 5300 and 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400, with FP16 at 8.448 TFLOPS versus 7.130 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratios.

Power and form factor also diverge. The Pro 5300 has a TDP of 85 W and is an IGP slot width with no power connectors and no display outputs. The W6400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and features 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both suggest a 250 W PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Pro 5300 and PCIe 4.0 x4 for the W6400. The Pro 5300 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and includes 12 ray tracing cores. The W6400’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega; the Pro 5300 has no listed predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 38,747 versus the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s 35,027, a 10.6% advantage.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 39,286 versus the AMD Radeon Pro 5300’s 35,793, an 8.9% lead.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory size?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, but the Pro 5300 uses a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 uses a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has no ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has an average benchmark score of 40,870, placing it in the 82nd percentile, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157, in the 80th percentile.

Q: What are the power draw differences?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has a TDP of 85 W. Both suggest a 250 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins in OpenCL compute performance, delivering a 10.6% higher score than the W6400. It also has higher raw compute throughput (4.224 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.565 TFLOPS) and more shading units (1,280 versus 768), making it the pick for general-purpose GPU compute that leverages OpenCL. Its wider 128-bit memory bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth provide an advantage in memory-heavy workloads, and its higher average benchmark score (40,870) indicates better overall performance across the board.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in Vulkan performance, beating the Pro 5300 by 8.9% in that specific test. It also has a higher pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s), which can benefit rasterization-heavy tasks. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware ray tracing gives it a feature advantage for modern graphics applications, and its lower 50 W TDP makes it more efficient per watt. The W6400’s higher clock speeds (boost 2321 MHz versus 1650 MHz) help it compensate for fewer shaders, and its 6 nm process node offers better transistor density. For Vulkan-centric software stacks or builds where power consumption is a concern, the W6400 is the clear winner.