AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs AMD Radeon Pro 5300

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M and AMD Radeon Pro 5300 are both RDNA 1.0 mobile parts from the 7 nm TSMC process, but they occupy different corners of the laptop GPU market. The RX 5600M is the gaming-focused option with a larger Navi 10 die, while the Pro 5300 is a professional mobile GPU built on Navi 14, designed for Mac-based workflows. Benchmark data shows the RX 5600M winning every head-to-head test by a wide margin, but the Pro 5300 holds its own in its niche with lower power demands and a different performance profile. The average benchmark scores tell the story: the RX 5600M sits at 46,601, while the Pro 5300 lands at 40,870, a gap of roughly 14% in aggregate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46,601 on average, which is 14% higher than the Radeon Pro 5300's 40,870. The RX 5600M also ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Pro 5300's 82nd percentile.

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

A: The RX 5600M scores 76,653, beating the Pro 5300's 48,070 by 59.5%. This is the largest single-benchmark margin between the two cards.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both are based on RDNA 1.0.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, giving 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Pro 5300 boosts to 1650 MHz, while the RX 5600M boosts to 1265 MHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the RX 5600M still outperforms the Pro 5300 due to its larger core configuration.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The RX 5600M was released on July 6, 2020, and the Pro 5300 followed on August 3, 2020.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 1.0 architecture, but the silicon underneath is very different. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip, a sizable die measuring 251 mm² with 10,300 million transistors. The Pro 5300 uses Navi 14, which is much smaller at 158 mm² with 6,400 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical — 41.0M per mm² for the RX 5600M versus 40.5M per mm² for the Pro 5300 — so the performance gap comes from raw die size, not architectural efficiency.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. The RX 5600M packs 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That means the RX 5600M has 80% more shading units and twice the ROPs. Pixel throughput reflects this: the RX 5600M delivers 80.96 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s for the Pro 5300. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 182.2 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern, with the RX 5600M hitting 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.66 TFLOPS FP16, while the Pro 5300 manages 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The RX 5600M uses a 192-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, producing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 5300 uses a narrower 128-bit bus with 4 GB at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 224.0 GB/s. The RX 5600M has more capacity and more bandwidth, though the Pro 5300's faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus. The Pro 5300 also runs on PCIe 4.0 x8, half the lanes of the RX 5600M's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The RX 5600M is rated at 150 W TDP with no power connectors and is listed as an IGP form factor. The Pro 5300 draws 85 W TDP, also with no power connectors and IGP slot width, but it has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Pro 5300 has no display outputs, while the RX 5600M's outputs are described as portable-device dependent. Both are 7 nm TSMC parts that are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the RX 5600M wins all three tested benchmarks. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M scores 76,653 against the Pro 5300's 48,070, a 59.5% advantage. This is the biggest margin of any test and likely reflects the RX 5600M's much larger shader count and memory bandwidth, which matter heavily in Metal's compute-heavy workloads.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar story, with the RX 5600M at 59,589 and the Pro 5300 at 38,747, a 53.8% lead. OpenCL workloads tend to scale with raw FP32 throughput, and the RX 5600M's 5.829 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS explains much of the gap. The 288.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s bandwidth difference also helps in memory-bound kernels.

Geekbench Vulkan narrows the gap but still favors the RX 5600M decisively. The RX 5600M scores 48,843, while the Pro 5300 trails at 35,793, a 36.5% difference. Vulkan is more sensitive to driver overhead and memory efficiency, which may explain why the Pro 5300 closes some ground relative to the other tests, but it never threatens the RX 5600M's lead.

Looking at the aggregate data, the RX 5600M's average score of 46,601 puts it 14% ahead of the Pro 5300's 40,870. The RX 5600M's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46,702 (-0.2%), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46,043 (1.2%). The Pro 5300's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti at 41,187 (-0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 at 40,377 (1.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 at 40,318 (1.4%). These comparisons show that the RX 5600M trades blows with current mobile gaming GPUs, while the Pro 5300 sits in a lower performance tier despite its professional branding.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw performance: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M. It wins every head-to-head benchmark, has a higher average score, more memory, more bandwidth, and a larger compute footprint. If the choice is purely about frame rates, compute throughput, or any measurable GPU workload, the RX 5600M is the superior part.

However, the Pro 5300 is not without reason to exist. Its 85 W TDP is nearly half the RX 5600M's 150 W, which matters in thin-and-light laptops or systems with tight thermal budgets. The Pro 5300 also has a higher boost clock at 1650 MHz versus 1265 MHz, which may yield better single-threaded or lightly-threaded performance in certain professional applications, though the benchmark data does not show this advantage materializing in the tested workloads. The Pro 5300's nearest rivals include the RTX 3080 Ti and RTX 5070, which suggests it competes in a different performance bracket entirely.

For a gamer or general-purpose user, the RX 5600M is the obvious pick. It delivers 59.5% higher Metal scores, 53.8% higher OpenCL scores, and 36.5% higher Vulkan scores, all while ranking higher in the overall GPU percentile. For a professional user on a Mac with strict power limits, the Pro 5300's lower TDP and smaller die may be worth the performance sacrifice, but the benchmark data does not show any workload where the Pro 5300 wins.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, while the Pro 5300 uses Navi 14 with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. Transistor density is close (41.0M vs 40.5M per mm²), but the RX 5600M's larger die gives it a massive compute advantage. The RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the Pro 5300.

Clock speeds differ in an interesting way: the Pro 5300 has a higher boost clock (1650 MHz vs 1265 MHz) and a slightly lower base clock (1000 MHz vs 1035 MHz). The RX 5600M also lists a game clock of 1190 MHz, which the Pro 5300 does not have. Memory clocks favor the Pro 5300 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600M, but the RX 5600M's wider 192-bit bus overcomes this to deliver 288.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Memory capacity favors the RX 5600M at 6 GB versus 4 GB. The RX 5600M also has a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the Pro 5300 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Power draw is a major differentiator: the RX 5600M is rated at 150 W TDP, the Pro 5300 at 85 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 5600M produces 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s, while the Pro 5300 produces 52.80 GPixel/s and 132.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.829 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS. The RX 5600M has a release date of July 6, 2020, and the Pro 5300 follows on August 3, 2020.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600M wins in every benchmark category tested. In Geekbench Metal, it leads by 59.5%, which is the largest gap and suggests that Metal-based rendering or compute tasks will see the biggest benefit from choosing the RX 5600M. OpenCL workloads show a 53.8% advantage, making the RX 5600M the clear choice for general-purpose compute that leverages OpenCL. Vulkan performance is closer at 36.5%, but the RX 5600M still holds a commanding lead for Vulkan-based games or applications.

The Pro 5300's advantages are not visible in benchmark scores but are clear in the specification sheet. Its 85 W TDP is 43% lower than the RX 5600M's 150 W, which makes it suitable for systems with limited cooling or battery capacity. The Pro 5300's higher boost clock of 1650 MHz could theoretically benefit applications that are clock-bound rather than core-bound, though no benchmark in the data confirms this. Its smaller die size (158 mm² vs 251 mm²) might also make it cheaper to produce, though no pricing data is available to confirm this.

For gaming, content creation, or any workload that stresses the GPU, the RX 5600M is the only rational choice based on the data. For a professional environment where power consumption is critical and the workload is light enough to fit within 85 W, the Pro 5300 offers a viable alternative, but it sacrifices 36-59% performance across all tested benchmarks to achieve that power efficiency. The RX 5600M also has more memory (6 GB vs 4 GB) and higher bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s), which will help with larger textures or datasets. The Pro 5300's lack of display outputs further limits its use case, as it requires a system with its own display solution, whereas the RX 5600M's outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it can drive a laptop panel directly.