AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile represent two vastly different generations of mobile graphics technology. The data shows a 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 part from 2020 facing a 24.72 TFLOPS FP32 behemoth from 2023. Benchmark results confirm a massive performance gulf, with the RTX 4080 Mobile winning both head-to-head tests by over 75%, but the Radeon Pro 5300 holds its own in the aggregate percentile rankings. This analysis breaks down the architectural chasm, the benchmark deltas, and the specific use cases where each GPU still makes sense.

The Verdict

The verdict from the benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is the overwhelmingly faster GPU. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4080 Mobile scores 159,575 against the Radeon Pro 5300’s 38,747, representing a 75.7% lead. The Vulkan results tell the same story, with the RTX 4080 Mobile at 145,807 versus 35,793, a 75.5% advantage. For any workload leveraging raw compute or modern graphics APIs, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice.

However, the Radeon Pro 5300 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 40,870 places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly higher than the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 81st percentile and 38,135 average. This suggests the AMD card, despite its age, delivers a more balanced performance profile across a broader set of legacy tests. The Radeon Pro 5300 is the pick for systems where power draw is a hard constraint, as its 85 W TDP is significantly lower than the 110 W TDP of the RTX 4080 Mobile. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether the user prioritizes raw, modern performance (RTX 4080 Mobile) or a lower-power, surprisingly well-rounded legacy performer (Radeon Pro 5300).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip based 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 / mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile leverages the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a more advanced 5 nm process. This chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 121.8M / mm²—roughly three times the transistor density of the AMD part.

Core configuration differences are stark. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The RTX 4080 Mobile boasts 7,424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU also includes dedicated hardware absent from the AMD chip: 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. This explains the RTX 4080 Mobile’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro 5300 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory subsystems also diverge significantly. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 Mobile has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, hitting 432.0 GB/s. Clock speeds are relatively close—the AMD card boosts to 1650 MHz, while the NVIDIA part boosts to 1665 MHz—but the NVIDIA chip has a higher base clock at 1290 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The RTX 4080 Mobile also supports a wider PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, compared to the Radeon Pro 5300’s PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head benchmarks available are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and both are decisive victories for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile. In OpenCL, the RTX 4080 Mobile scores 159,575, which is 75.7% higher than the Radeon Pro 5300’s 38,747. This massive delta reflects the NVIDIA part’s 5.85x advantage in FP32 throughput (24.72 TFLOPS vs 4.224 TFLOPS) and its 1.93x higher memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The RTX 4080 Mobile posts 145,807, a 75.5% improvement over the Radeon Pro 5300’s 35,793. Notably, the AMD card’s Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score, while the NVIDIA part’s Vulkan score is also lower than its OpenCL score, but the absolute gap remains consistent. The RTX 4080 Mobile also benefits from its ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which can accelerate certain Vulkan workloads, though the standard Geekbench test primarily measures rasterization and compute.

Looking at the aggregate data, the RTX 4080 Mobile’s average benchmark score is 38,135, which is actually lower than the Radeon Pro 5300’s 40,870. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it stems from the NVIDIA card’s inclusion of several Passmark tests where it scores very low (e.g., Passmark DirectX 10 at 157, DirectX 12 at 96). These legacy tests likely penalize the newer architecture’s driver overhead or feature set. The Radeon Pro 5300, with only three Geekbench results, benefits from a more concentrated score profile. This explains why the Radeon Pro 5300 sits at the 82nd percentile while the RTX 4080 Mobile sits at the 81st, despite the latter being far faster in modern workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has a higher average benchmark score of 40,870, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile’s 38,135. This is despite the RTX 4080 Mobile winning both head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile delivers 24.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately 5.85 times the 4.224 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The RTX 4080 Mobile has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, three times the 4 GB found on the Radeon Pro 5300. The NVIDIA part also has a wider 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 128-bit and 224.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 5300 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 5300 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications. The RTX 4080 Mobile includes 58 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300 has a lower TDP of 85 W compared to the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 110 W, making the AMD part more power-efficient for systems with strict thermal or power budgets.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 was released on August 3, 2020, and is marked as end-of-life. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile was released on January 2, 2023, and is still an active product.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile wins decisively in raw performance and modern feature support. Its 24.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 58 ray tracing cores, and 232 tensor cores make it the superior choice for demanding 3D rendering, AI inference, and any workload that leverages DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The 12 GB memory capacity and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for large textures and datasets. In the head-to-head Geekbench tests, the RTX 4080 Mobile leads by over 75% in both OpenCL and Vulkan, making it the clear winner for compute-heavy applications. Its active production status and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface also position it as the more future-proof option.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins in scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint. Its 85 W TDP is 22.7% lower than the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 110 W, making it suitable for compact or battery-sensitive mobile workstations. The data also shows the Radeon Pro 5300 has a higher average benchmark score (40,870 vs 38,135) and a higher percentile ranking (82nd vs 81st), indicating it performs relatively better across a wider range of legacy benchmarks. This suggests the AMD card may be a better fit for older software that does not optimize for the newer NVIDIA architecture. Its 4 GB memory may be limiting, but for basic GPU compute or display tasks where the RTX 4080 Mobile’s massive resources are unnecessary, the Radeon Pro 5300 offers a more efficient solution. The Radeon Pro 5300 also wins on transistor density efficiency in terms of die size, packing 6,400 million transistors into just 158 mm² versus the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 35,800 million on 294 mm², though this is a manufacturing metric rather than a performance one.