AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between these two AMD GPUs based on the API used. The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins two of the three head-to-head tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 takes one. The most decisive result is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 480 scores 45968 against the Pro 5300's 35793, a substantial 22.1% advantage. This is the largest margin recorded in any comparison between the two cards.

In the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 480 again comes out on top, scoring 51057 compared to the Pro 5300's 48070. That 5.9% lead is more modest than the Vulkan gap, but it still represents a consistent pattern of the older card outperforming the newer one in Apple's graphics API. The only benchmark where the Pro 5300 claims victory is Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 38747 versus the RX 480's 37998. That 2% margin is narrow, suggesting the two cards are nearly equivalent in raw compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

Looking at the broader database context, the Pro 5300's average benchmark score of 40870 places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 480's average score of 33997 sits in the 78th percentile. This seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but the explanation lies in the benchmark suite composition. The Pro 5300's average is buoyed by its consistent scores across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, whereas the RX 480's average is dragged down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 966, a test the Pro 5300 does not have recorded. The RX 480's wins in the Geekbench tests are significant, but the Pro 5300's overall profile is more balanced.

The nearest rivals for each card further illustrate their positioning. The Pro 5300 sits within 2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070, the AMD Radeon Pro 580, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100. Specifically, it is 0.8% behind the RTX 3080 Ti, 1.2% ahead of the RTX 5070, 1.4% ahead of the Pro 580, and 2% ahead of the WX 7100. The RX 480, by contrast, is clustered with the AMD Radeon HD 7950, AMD Radeon RX 560 XT, AMD Radeon RX 7700S, and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, with deltas ranging from 0.5% behind the RTX A2000 to 0.4% ahead of the RX 7700S. This places the RX 480 in a lower tier of average performance despite its head-to-head wins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process difference is stark: the Pro 5300 packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The RX 480 has fewer transistors at 5,700 million, but they are spread across a much larger 232 mm² die, yielding a density of just 24.6M per mm². The Pro 5300 is nearly half the die size while holding more transistors, a direct result of the newer manufacturing node.

The compute configurations also diverge significantly. The Pro 5300 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, the Pro 5300 achieves a higher pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s compared to the RX 480's 40.51 GPixel/s. However, the RX 480's texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s far exceeds the Pro 5300's 132.0 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the RX 480 is ahead at 5.834 TFLOPS versus the Pro 5300's 4.224 TFLOPS. The FP16 picture is different: the Pro 5300 delivers 8.448 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 480 delivers only 5.834 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the Pro 5300 has a dedicated advantage in half-precision workloads.

Memory configurations reflect different priorities. The Pro 5300 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. The RX 480 has double the capacity and 14.3% more bandwidth, but the Pro 5300's GDDR6 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, compared to the RX 480's 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. Clock speeds also differ: the Pro 5300 has a 1000 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, while the RX 480 has a 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost. The Pro 5300's boost clock is substantially higher, but its base clock is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has an average benchmark score of 40870, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 480 has an average score of 33997, placing it in the 78th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins the Geekbench Metal test with a score of 51057, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 48070. The RX 480 leads by 5.9%.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 45968 against the AMD Radeon Pro 5300's 35793, a 22.1% advantage for the RX 480.

Q: Does the Pro 5300 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 38747, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 480's 37998, a 2% lead.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has a TDP of 85 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The AMD Radeon RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion. The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins more head-to-head tests, taking two of three, and its victories in Metal and Vulkan are decisive. The 22.1% Vulkan lead is the single largest margin, and the 5.9% Metal lead confirms that the RX 480 has a real advantage in those APIs. However, the Pro 5300's higher average benchmark score and 82nd percentile ranking suggest it is the more consistent performer across the entire recorded benchmark suite.

For users prioritizing Geekbench Metal or Vulkan performance, the RX 480 is the clear choice based on the numbers. Its scores of 51057 and 45968 are simply higher than the Pro 5300's 48070 and 35793. The RX 480 also offers double the memory capacity, 8 GB versus 4 GB, and higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. For users who need OpenCL performance, the Pro 5300 has a slight edge, and its much lower TDP of 85 W versus 150 W makes it far more power-efficient. The Pro 5300 also has a higher pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s, which could matter in certain rasterization-bound tasks.

The choice depends on the workload. The RX 480 is better for Metal and Vulkan applications, while the Pro 5300 is better for OpenCL and efficiency. The Pro 5300's smaller die, newer process node, and higher boost clock of 1650 MHz versus 1266 MHz give it architectural advantages, but the RX 480's raw shader count and memory capacity are hard to ignore. The database shows a 2-1 win split, but the Pro 5300's overall standing in the percentile rankings indicates it is not simply the inferior card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 7 nm for the Pro 5300 and 14 nm for the RX 480. Transistor counts are 6,400 million versus 5,700 million, and die sizes are 158 mm² versus 232 mm². The transistor density is 40.5M per mm² for the Pro 5300 and 24.6M per mm² for the RX 480. Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 1120 MHz, while boost clocks are 1650 MHz versus 1266 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for the Pro 5300, and 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective for the RX 480.

Memory size is 4 GB GDDR6 versus 8 GB GDDR5, with bus widths of 128 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1280 versus 2304, TMUs are 80 versus 144, and ROPs are 32 for both. Pixel rates are 52.80 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 132.0 GTexel/s versus 182.3 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.224 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS, and FP16 compute is 8.448 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS. TDP is 85 W versus 150 W, slot width is IGP versus dual-slot, and power connectors are none versus one 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0), and Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.3. The RX 480 has dimensions of 240 mm length, 95 mm height, and 35 mm width, while the Pro 5300 has no recorded dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins in Geekbench Metal and Geekbench Vulkan, making it the stronger choice for applications that rely on those APIs. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it an edge in memory-heavy workloads, and its higher FP32 throughput of 5.834 TFLOPS suggests better raw single-precision compute performance. The RX 480 also has a higher texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s, which benefits texture-intensive rendering.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and its higher FP16 throughput of 8.448 TFLOPS indicates a significant advantage in half-precision workloads, which are common in machine learning inference and certain graphics effects. Its 7 nm process and 158 mm² die size make it dramatically more power-efficient, with an 85 W TDP versus 150 W. The Pro 5300 also has a higher pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s, which can benefit fill-rate-bound scenarios, and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface offers double the per-lane bandwidth of the RX 480's PCIe 3.0 x16.

The RX 480 is the pick for Metal and Vulkan users who need more memory and raw shader power. The Pro 5300 is the pick for OpenCL users, efficiency-focused builds, and anyone who values half-precision compute or a smaller footprint. The RX 480's higher average benchmark score from its nearest rivals, such as being 0.4% ahead of the RX 7700S, contrasts with the Pro 5300's proximity to much higher-tier cards like the RTX 3080 Ti, which it trails by only 0.8%. This suggests the Pro 5300 punches above its weight class in the database's overall rankings, even if it loses the head-to-head.