AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs NVIDIA P104-100 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions these two cards in different performance tiers despite their shared 4 GB memory capacity. The NVIDIA P104-100 is the clear winner in the recorded head-to-head tests, taking both available benchmarks. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300, however, holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 82 versus 77 for the P104-100, which reflects its stronger showing across a wider benchmark suite. The AMD card also posts a higher average benchmark score of 40870 compared to 32982 for the NVIDIA part, indicating that the P104-100's wins are specific to certain workloads rather than universal.

The Radeon Pro 5300 is better suited for general-purpose compute and cross-API compatibility, given its higher average score and percentile placement. The P104-100, on the other hand, excels in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads where its raw throughput advantages translate directly into higher scores. Users prioritizing those specific APIs should favor the NVIDIA card. Those needing a more balanced overall profile, as reflected in the aggregate database metrics, would lean toward the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA P104-100 uses the GP104 chip based on the older Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This process gap explains the dramatic difference in die size: the Navi 14 die measures 158 mm² with 6,400 million transistors, while the GP104 die is 314 mm² with 7,200 million transistors. Transistor density tells the story clearly: 40.5M per mm² for the AMD chip versus 22.9M per mm² for the NVIDIA chip.

Clock behavior also differs significantly. The Radeon Pro 5300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. The P104-100 starts higher at 1607 MHz base and boosts to 1733 MHz. Memory technology diverges as well: the AMD card uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA card uses GDDR5X at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed. The memory bus width is a major differentiator: 128 bit for AMD versus 256 bit for NVIDIA, resulting in bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s versus 320.3 GB/s respectively.

Compute resources are structured differently. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The P104-100 has 1920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The power situation is notable: the AMD card has a TDP of 85 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the NVIDIA card's TDP is not recorded, but it requires a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The AMD card is an IGP form factor, whereas the NVIDIA card is dual-slot with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). Both have no display outputs. The bus interface differs sharply: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 1.0 x4 for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300, with an average score of 40870, is higher than the NVIDIA P104-100's 32982.

Q: In which benchmark does the NVIDIA P104-100 show its largest margin of victory?

A: The largest margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the P104-100 scores 52368 versus 38747 for the Radeon Pro 5300, a delta of -26% from the AMD card's perspective.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, along with OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA P104-100 has a bandwidth of 320.3 GB/s, which is substantially higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5300's 224.0 GB/s, due to the 256-bit bus versus 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300, at 40.5M transistors per mm², far exceeds the NVIDIA P104-100's 22.9M per mm², reflecting the newer 7 nm process.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products with no display outputs?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life, and both have no display outputs, making them unsuitable for direct display connection.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences across nearly every major category. The process node favors AMD: 7 nm versus 16 nm for NVIDIA. Die size favors AMD as well: 158 mm² versus 314 mm². Transistor count slightly favors NVIDIA: 7,200 million versus 6,400 million. Transistor density strongly favors AMD: 40.5M per mm² versus 22.9M per mm².

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA in both base and boost: 1607 MHz base and 1733 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost for AMD. Memory type and speed differ: GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective for AMD versus GDDR5X at 10 Gbps effective for NVIDIA. Memory bus width favors NVIDIA: 256 bit versus 128 bit. Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA: 320.3 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Both have 4 GB of memory.

Compute unit counts favor NVIDIA across the board: 1920 shading units versus 1280, 120 TMUs versus 80, and 64 ROPs versus 32. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA: 110.9 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate likewise: 208.0 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA: 6.655 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS. FP16 is a stark contrast: the AMD card delivers 8.448 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card manages only 104.0 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

Power specifications differ: AMD has a TDP of 85 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. NVIDIA's TDP is not recorded, but it uses a single 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Form factor differs: AMD is IGP, NVIDIA is dual-slot with a length of 267 mm. Bus interface favors AMD: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 1.0 x4. Release dates differ: AMD launched on 2020-08-03, NVIDIA on 2017-12-11. Both are end-of-life with no display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmarks show a clean sweep for the NVIDIA P104-100, though the margins are not uniform. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P104-100 scores 52368 against the Radeon Pro 5300's 38747, a delta of -26% from the AMD card's perspective. This is the larger of the two victories. The NVIDIA card's advantage here is substantial and likely stems from its higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth, which directly feed OpenCL compute workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the P104-100 again wins, scoring 45165 versus 35793 for the Radeon Pro 5300, a delta of -20.8%. While still a clear victory, the margin is narrower than in OpenCL. This suggests the AMD card's RDNA 1.0 architecture is relatively more competitive in Vulkan than in OpenCL, though it still trails the Pascal-based NVIDIA part in raw performance.

Notably, the database records zero wins for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 and two wins for the NVIDIA P104-100 in these direct comparisons. Yet the aggregate picture complicates this simple narrative. The Radeon Pro 5300's average benchmark score of 40870 exceeds the P104-100's 32982 by a significant margin, and its percentile rank of 82 versus 77 indicates it performs better relative to all other GPUs in the database. This apparent contradiction resolves when considering that the P104-100 has only three recorded benchmarks (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan), while the AMD card has three as well (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan). The NVIDIA card's OpenCL and Vulkan scores are strong, but its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1413 may drag down its average. The AMD card's Geekbench Metal score of 48070 is notably high and likely props up its average. This indicates the P104-100 is specialized for compute APIs, while the Radeon Pro 5300 shows more balanced strength across a broader set of workloads, including Apple's Metal API.