AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon RX 590 GME Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, with each card claiming one decisive victory in shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 takes the win with 38,747 points against 36,294 for the RX 590 GME, a 6.8% margin. That OpenCL result aligns with the Pro 5300’s mixed API support on paper, though the gap is modest enough that it does not overshadow the larger swing in the Vulkan test. The RX 590 GME is the clear winner in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 60,508 points versus 35,793 for the Pro 5300, a 40.8% deficit for the latter. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head set, and it heavily shapes the overall impression: the RX 590 GME is the stronger choice for Vulkan-centric workloads, while the Pro 5300 only leads in OpenCL, and by a much smaller margin.

Wider benchmark averages reinforce the same pattern. The Pro 5300 holds an average benchmark score of 40,870, putting it just below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti’s 41,187 (0.8% behind) and 1.2% above the RTX 5070’s 40,377. The RX 590 GME, in contrast, averages 32,601, which is 0.2% above the AMD FirePro S9300 X2’s 32,540 and 0.4% above the RX 7900 GRE’s 32,456. That places the RX 590 GME well behind the Pro 5300 in aggregate performance, with the Pro 5300’s average score being 25.3% higher than the RX 590 GME’s. The database’s percentile rankings also differ: the Pro 5300 sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 590 GME sits in the 77th.

Specific architecture traits explain the discrepancy. The Pro 5300, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with RDNA 1.0, runs a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz, while the RX 590 GME, on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process with GCN 4.0, runs at 1257 MHz base and 1420 MHz boost. The Pro 5300’s higher boost clock, combined with its newer RDNA architecture, helps it in OpenCL even though the RX 590 GME has more shading units (2304 versus 1280) and a higher FP32 throughput (6.543 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS). The RX 590 GME’s Vulkan advantage is large enough to offset its lower average score in the other recorded test.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 is the pick for users prioritizing raw compute averages and OpenCL performance. Its 40,870 average benchmark score is 25.3% above the RX 590 GME’s 32,601, and its percentile ranking (82nd versus 77th) confirms a higher position in the overall GPU distribution. For anyone running OpenCL-heavy applications, the Pro 5300’s 6.8% lead in that specific test is the deciding factor.

The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME is the pick for Vulkan-centric workloads. Its 60,508 Vulkan score is 40.8% higher than the Pro 5300’s 35,793, a dramatic advantage that no other benchmark in the head-to-head set approaches. Users whose software relies on Vulkan APIs should favor the RX 590 GME without hesitation, despite its lower average score across all recorded tests.

Neutral analysis: the Pro 5300 wins on overall consistency and the OpenCL test, while the RX 590 GME wins decisively on Vulkan. There is no single “best” card; the choice depends on the API mix of the target workload. The Pro 5300’s higher average and percentile position make it the safer all-rounder, but the RX 590 GME’s Vulkan dominance is too large to ignore for that specific use case.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300, with an average score of 40,870, compared to 32,601 for the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: The RX 590 GME scores 60,508 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 40.8% higher than the Pro 5300’s 35,793.

Q: Does the RX 590 GME beat the Pro 5300 in any test?

A: Yes, the RX 590 GME wins the Geekbench Vulkan test by a wide margin, while the Pro 5300 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 6.8%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 590 GME has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Pro 5300 has a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s, above the RX 590 GME’s 45.44 GPixel/s.

Q: How do the two cards compare in FP32 compute?

A: The RX 590 GME delivers 6.543 TFLOPS FP32, while the Pro 5300 delivers 4.224 TFLOPS FP32.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The Pro 5300 uses a 7 nm process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the RX 590 GME uses a 14 nm process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the Pro 5300 at 40.5M per mm² versus 24.6M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge: the Pro 5300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, while the RX 590 GME runs at 1257 MHz base and 1420 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the Pro 5300 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and the RX 590 GME at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth move in opposite directions: the Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 590 GME has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute units differ as well. The Pro 5300 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 590 GME has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This yields different fill rates: the Pro 5300 has a pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 132.0 GTexel/s, while the RX 590 GME has a pixel rate of 45.44 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 204.5 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics differ substantially. The Pro 5300 is rated at 85 W TDP, is integrated (IGP), has no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 590 GME is rated at 175 W TDP, is a dual-slot card, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The RX 590 GME measures 241 mm in length (9.5 inches).

Bus interfaces differ: the Pro 5300 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 590 GME uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also distinct, with the Pro 5300 having no outputs and the RX 590 GME offering 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan: the Pro 5300 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, while the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 20 chip. This is a fundamental design split: RDNA 1.0 is a newer, efficiency-focused architecture, while GCN 4.0 is an older, higher-throughput design. The Pro 5300 is fabricated by TSMC on 7 nm, whereas the RX 590 GME is fabricated by GlobalFoundries on 14 nm.

The Pro 5300 has a smaller die (158 mm²) but a higher transistor density (40.5M per mm²), reflecting the more advanced process. Its total transistor count is 6,400 million, slightly above the RX 590 GME’s 5,700 million, but packed into a much smaller area. The RX 590 GME’s larger die (232 mm²) and lower density (24.6M per mm²) show the older node’s limitations.

Core counts differ in line with the architectures. The RX 590 GME has 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs, far more than the Pro 5300’s 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs. However, the Pro 5300’s RDNA design compensates with higher clocks (1650 MHz boost versus 1420 MHz) and a higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s versus 45.44 GPixel/s). The RX 590 GME retains a higher texture rate (204.5 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (6.543 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS).

FP16 capability also differs. The Pro 5300 achieves 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 590 GME achieves 6.543 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Memory architecture differs as well: the Pro 5300 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, while the RX 590 GME uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus. The RX 590 GME has higher memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s) and double the capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB). The Pro 5300’s effective memory speed is 14 Gbps, while the RX 590 GME’s is 8 Gbps.

The Pro 5300 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation (Navi Series), while the RX 590 GME belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation. The RX 590 GME lists Arctic Islands as its predecessor and Vega as its successor, while the Pro 5300 has no recorded predecessor or successor. The Pro 5300 has no display outputs, reflecting its integrated (IGP) design, while the RX 590 GME is a dual-slot card with HDMI and DisplayPort outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins in aggregate performance and OpenCL workloads. Its 40,870 average benchmark score is 25.3% above the RX 590 GME’s 32,601, and its 82nd percentile rank places it above the RX 590 GME’s 77th. The Pro 5300 also wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 38,747 versus 36,294, a 6.8% lead. Its higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s) and lower TDP (85 W versus 175 W) make it the more efficient choice, though the database does not record power efficiency directly. Its IGP form factor and lack of display outputs suit it for compute-focused systems where external display handling is unnecessary.

The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME wins decisively in Vulkan performance. Its 60,508 Vulkan score is 40.8% above the Pro 5300’s 35,793, the largest single-test margin in the head-to-head set. Its higher memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB) and wider 256-bit bus with more bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s) make it the better fit for memory-hungry workloads, even if those advantages are not directly reflected in the recorded benchmarks. Its dual-slot design with HDMI and DisplayPort outputs means it can drive displays directly, unlike the Pro 5300. It also has a higher FP32 throughput (6.543 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS), which may help in compute tasks that favor raw shading-unit count over architectural efficiency.

The use-case split is clear: the Pro 5300 for OpenCL-heavy, efficiency-conscious compute environments with no display output requirement, and the RX 590 GME for Vulkan-centric applications, larger memory footprints, and scenarios needing direct display connectivity. The Pro 5300’s higher average score and percentile make it the stronger all-rounder in the database’s recorded tests, but the RX 590 GME’s Vulkan lead is too substantial to ignore for any Vulkan-first workflow.