AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300. Both are compute-oriented tests, and the results are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 219,065 against the Radeon Pro 5300's 38,747. That is a delta of 465.4 percent, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers more than five times the OpenCL performance of the AMD card. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 4080 SUPER records 260,075 points while the Radeon Pro 5300 manages 35,793. The delta here reaches 626.6 percent, so the NVIDIA part outperforms the AMD part by a factor of roughly seven in that API.

These two wins give the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER a clean sweep in the head-to-head section, with two wins and zero losses. The Radeon Pro 5300 does not have a single benchmark where it comes out ahead in the direct comparison set. The magnitude of the deltas is worth emphasizing: a 465 percent lead in OpenCL and a 626 percent lead in Vulkan are not marginal differences, they represent entirely different performance tiers. The RTX 4080 SUPER's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 54,209, while the Radeon Pro 5300 sits at 40,870. The NVIDIA card also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs, at 86 compared to 82 for the AMD part.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The RTX 4080 SUPER's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, with an average score of 54,247, a delta of -0.1 percent. That means the SUPER variant is essentially tied with the non-SUPER RTX 4080 in the database, a negligible difference. The other nearby rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at 54,828 (-1.1 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB at 55,698 (-2.7 percent), and the AMD Radeon 8060S at 55,757 (-2.8 percent). So the RTX 4080 SUPER sits just below those three cards, but within 3 percent of all of them.

For the Radeon Pro 5300, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti with an average score of 41,187, a delta of -0.8 percent. The AMD card is slightly behind that rival. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 scores 40,377, which puts the Radeon Pro 5300 ahead by 1.2 percent. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 40,318, a 1.4 percent deficit, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40,063, a 2 percent deficit. The Radeon Pro 5300 therefore occupies a narrow band where it trades places with several mid-range cards, all within a 2.8 percent spread.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER across every measurable dimension in the head-to-head set. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA card's 219,065 points versus the AMD card's 38,747 points means the RTX 4080 SUPER is the clear choice for compute workloads that rely on this API. The same applies to Vulkan, where 260,075 points versus 35,793 points represents a massive advantage. The RTX 4080 SUPER also holds a higher average benchmark score of 54,209 versus 40,870, reinforcing that it is the stronger overall performer.

The Radeon Pro 5300 does have one unique benchmark result that the RTX 4080 SUPER does not share: a Geekbench Metal score of 48,070. The NVIDIA card has no recorded Metal benchmark in the database, so the AMD part wins that category by default. This matters for macOS or Metal-specific workloads, as the Radeon Pro 5300 is the only one of the two with data supporting that API. The AMD card also carries a lower power footprint, with an 85 W TDP compared to the RTX 4080 SUPER's 320 W, and it requires no power connectors, which may suit certain integrated or low-power system designs.

For gaming and general rasterization, the RTX 4080 SUPER's Passmark scores are decisive. It records 34,245 in Passmark G3D, 381 in DirectX 9, 301 in DirectX 11, 193 in DirectX 10, and 134 in DirectX 12. The Radeon Pro 5300 has no Passmark entries in the database, so the NVIDIA card is the only one with evidence of DirectX gaming performance. The RTX 4080 SUPER also has dedicated ray tracing cores (80) and tensor cores (320), while the Radeon Pro 5300 has none listed. For any workload that leverages ray tracing or AI acceleration, the NVIDIA part is the only option with hardware support in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER uses the AD103 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with Ada Lovelace architecture. It packs 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, with RDNA 1.0 architecture. Its transistor count is 6,400 million on a 158 mm² die, which translates to 40.5 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip is far more complex, with roughly seven times the transistor count and a die that is more than twice the size.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also runs its memory at 1438 MHz (23 Gbps effective), while the AMD card runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The RTX 4080 SUPER's memory bandwidth is more than three times higher, which directly impacts high-resolution textures and compute-heavy data movement.

The compute resources are also in different leagues. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units. It also includes 80 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores listed. The pixel rate for the NVIDIA card is 285.6 GPixel/s, versus 52.80 GPixel/s for the AMD card. The texture rate is 816.0 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 52.22 TFLOPS for the RTX 4080 SUPER and 4.224 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 5300. FP16 performance is 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA and 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD, meaning the NVIDIA card also handles FP16 at full rate while the AMD card halves its rate.

The clocks also tell a story of design intent. The RTX 4080 SUPER has a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. The NVIDIA card boosts nearly 900 MHz higher, and its base clock is already above the AMD card's boost clock. The power envelope reflects this: the RTX 4080 SUPER is rated at 320 W with a 700 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro 5300 is rated at 85 W with a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card is triple-slot with a 16-pin connector; the AMD card is an IGP with no outputs and no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the overwhelmingly faster card in every direct benchmark comparison. It leads by 465.4 percent in OpenCL and 626.6 percent in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 54,209 is 32.6 percent higher than the Radeon Pro 5300's 40,870. The RTX 4080 SUPER also holds a higher percentile rank (86 versus 82), meaning it sits closer to the top of the database's GPU distribution. Anyone choosing between these two for compute, ray tracing, or high-end gaming should select the NVIDIA card based on this evidence alone.

The Radeon Pro 5300's case rests on narrower grounds. It has a Metal benchmark score of 48,070, which the NVIDIA card cannot match because no Metal result exists for it. It also draws far less power (85 W versus 320 W), requires no external power connectors, and is an IGP form factor, making it suitable for systems where space and power are constrained. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 3080 Ti, RTX 5070, Radeon Pro 580, and Radeon Pro WX 7100, all within a 2.8 percent band, so it performs in line with those mid-range parts. But in a direct head-to-head with the RTX 4080 SUPER, the AMD card is outclassed by a wide margin.

The verdict depends on the use case. For maximum performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, or for any workload requiring ray tracing or tensor cores, the RTX 4080 SUPER is the only choice. For a low-power integrated solution with Metal support and no external power requirement, the Radeon Pro 5300 has a role, but that role is limited to specific system configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER scores 219,065, versus 38,747 for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300, a delta of 465.4 percent.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER records 260,075 points in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon Pro 5300 scores 35,793, a delta of 626.6 percent.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 5300 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the AMD card has a Geekbench Metal score of 48,070. The RTX 4080 SUPER has no recorded Metal benchmark, so the Radeon Pro 5300 wins that category by default.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The closest is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 at 54,247 average score, a delta of -0.1 percent. Other rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (-1.1 percent), AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (-2.7 percent), and AMD Radeon 8060S (-2.8 percent).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Radeon Pro 5300?

A: The closest is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti at 41,187 average score, a delta of -0.8 percent. Other rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (+1.2 percent), AMD Radeon Pro 580 (+1.4 percent), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (+2 percent).

Q: Which card has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER has 80 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has no ray tracing or tensor cores listed in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 45,900 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 379 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.1M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2550 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 736.3 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10240 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 320 | 80 |

| ROPs | 112 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 80 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 285.6 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 816.0 GTexel/s | 132.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 52.22 TFLOPS | 4.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 320 W | 85 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2020-08-03 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |