AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records three common tests for both GPUs, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT wins all three by substantial margins. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6800 XT scores 181,337 against the Radeon Pro 5300's 48,070, a delta of 277.2%. That is the narrowest gap of the three tests, yet it still represents a near fourfold advantage in raw score.

Geekbench OpenCL shows an even wider chasm. The RX 6800 XT posts 171,304, while the Radeon Pro 5300 manages 38,747. The resulting delta of 342.1% is the largest recorded in this comparison. The compute-oriented workload amplifies the architectural and resource differences between the two cards more than the Metal test does.

Geekbench Vulkan follows a similar pattern. The RX 6800 XT records 136,875, and the Radeon Pro 5300 scores 35,793, a delta of 282.4%. Vulkan results typically scale with shading units, memory bandwidth, and driver optimization, and the data here is consistent with that expectation. The RX 6800 XT holds a 3-to-0 win record in the head-to-head set, with no test where the Radeon Pro 5300 takes the lead.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces the hierarchy. The RX 6800 XT averages 48,477 across all recorded tests, while the Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40,870. That 18.6% gap in average score is smaller than the head-to-head deltas, because the RX 6800 XT also runs tests that the Radeon Pro 5300 does not appear in, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute workloads.

Percentile placement also differs meaningfully. The RX 6800 XT sits at the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro 5300 sits at the 82nd percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head score differences, both cards rank within a few percentile points of each other, which suggests that the Radeon Pro 5300 competes in a field where many other GPUs are also slower than the RX 6800 XT.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context for each card's standing. The RX 6800 XT's average score of 48,477 places it 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (47,743), 2.5% behind the Intel Arc A550M (49,737), 3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957), and 3% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50,001). The Radeon Pro 5300's average of 40,870 is 0.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187), 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (40,377), 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318), and 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063). These deltas show that neither card dominates its immediate competitive cluster; the RX 6800 XT is effectively tied with its nearest neighbors, and the Radeon Pro 5300 is similarly clustered.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800 XT wins every workload category where both cards have recorded data. In Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, its scores are between 277.2% and 342.1% higher. For users running GPU-accelerated rendering, compute kernels, or Vulkan-based games, the RX 6800 XT is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The database also includes tests that only the RX 6800 XT has results for, which further expands its win envelope. In Passmark G3D, it scores 24,980; in Passmark GPU Compute, 13,245; in Passmark G2D, 1,030; in DirectX 11, 264; in DirectX 9, 265; in DirectX 10, 155; and in DirectX 12, 100. The Radeon Pro 5300 has no recorded entries for any Passmark test, so the RX 6800 XT is the only card in this comparison with verified DirectX and 2D performance data.

The Radeon Pro 5300 has no recorded wins in any benchmark. Its strengths are not visible in the score data; they appear instead in its physical and power characteristics. It is an IGP-class card with no display outputs, no power connectors, and an 85 W TDP, compared to the RX 6800 XT's 300 W TDP with 2x 8-pin connectors. It also has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6800 XT has 72. For systems where power delivery and physical footprint are the primary constraints, the Radeon Pro 5300 is the only viable option, but that is a system design consideration, not a benchmark win.

In terms of use-case split, the data suggests the RX 6800 XT is suited for high-throughput rendering, gaming at high resolutions, and compute-heavy tasks. The Radeon Pro 5300, with its lower power envelope and IGP form factor, is suited for Mac-oriented workstation builds that prioritize integration over peak performance. The recorded benchmark scores do not show any scenario where the Radeon Pro 5300 outperforms the RX 6800 XT.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations. The RX 6800 XT uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 21 chip, while the Radeon Pro 5300 uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 14 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The RX 6800 XT packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The Radeon Pro 5300 has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, with a density of 40.5M per mm². The RX 6800 XT therefore has more than four times the transistor count and more than three times the die area.

Shader resources differ by a similar magnitude. The RX 6800 XT has 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6800 XT also includes 72 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Radeon Pro 5300, which lists no RT cores.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The RX 6800 XT has a base clock of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5300 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, with no game clock listed. The RX 6800 XT also runs its memory at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the Radeon Pro 5300 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are heavily skewed toward the RX 6800 XT. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, for 224.0 GB/s. That is less than half the bandwidth and a quarter of the capacity.

Theoretical throughput numbers follow the same pattern. The RX 6800 XT delivers 20.74 TFLOPS FP32 and 41.47 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Radeon Pro 5300 delivers 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Pixel and texture rates also favor the RX 6800 XT: 288.0 GPixel/s and 648.0 GTexel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s and 132.0 GTexel/s.

Interface and power characteristics diverge as well. The RX 6800 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 5300 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 6800 XT is a dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a recommended 700 W PSU; the Radeon Pro 5300 is an IGP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 6800 XT also offers display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The Radeon Pro 5300 has no display outputs at all. API support is similar, with both cards supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the Radeon Pro 5300 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

The RX 6800 XT was released on 2020-10-27, and the Radeon Pro 5300 on 2020-08-03. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 6800 XT has a recorded launch MSRP of 649 USD; the Radeon Pro 5300 has no launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 in every shared test by margins between 277.2% and 342.1%. It also holds a higher average benchmark score (48,477 versus 40,870) and a higher percentile rank (85 versus 82). Any user selecting a GPU for raw performance should pick the RX 6800 XT.

The Radeon Pro 5300's case rests entirely on its integration profile. It draws 85 W, requires no power connectors, takes up no expansion slot, and has no display outputs, which makes it suitable for a sealed workstation or Mac-oriented system where the GPU is not user-accessible. Its 4 GB memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for lightweight compute and display tasks, but the data shows no workload where it beats the RX 6800 XT.

The RX 6800 XT also has the advantage of ray tracing hardware (72 RT cores), DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a wider memory bus. The Radeon Pro 5300 has no RT cores and only DirectX 12 (12_1) support. For gaming, 3D rendering, or compute-heavy workflows, the RX 6800 XT is the only defensible choice from this data.

The nearest rival comparisons add nuance. The RX 6800 XT sits within 3% of the Intel Arc A550M, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, so it is not the undisputed king of its performance tier. The Radeon Pro 5300 sits within 2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070, AMD Radeon Pro 580, and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100, meaning its average score is competitive with a much newer NVIDIA card, the RTX 5070, which is 1.2% behind it.

In short, the RX 6800 XT is the performance winner by every recorded metric, and the Radeon Pro 5300 is a low-power integrated alternative with no benchmark victories.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has an average benchmark score of 48,477, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40,870.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 6800 XT scores 181,337 versus 48,070 for the Radeon Pro 5300, a delta of 277.2% in favor of the RX 6800 XT.

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

A: No. The RX 6800 XT wins all three shared tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), giving it a 3-to-0 win record.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RX 6800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 6800 XT has 72 ray tracing cores. The Radeon Pro 5300 lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: How do the cards compare in power requirements?

A: The RX 6800 XT has a 300 W TDP with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 700 W PSU. The Radeon Pro 5300 has an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, and an IGP slot width.