AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 records an average benchmark score of 40,870, while the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 averages 35,520. The AMD card sits at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, compared to the Quadro GV100’s 80th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 33.32 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 offers 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Quadro holds roughly a 4x lead in both precision formats.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro GV100 carries 32 GB of HBM2 across a 4096-bit bus, yielding 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The Quadro provides 8x the capacity and nearly 4x the bandwidth.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD card wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head results, the Quadro GV100 wins both recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL (150,004 vs 38,747) and Geekbench Vulkan (139,526 vs 35,793). The database shows 0 wins for the Radeon and 2 wins for the Quadro.

Q: How do the two compare in transistor count and die size?

A: The Quadro GV100 uses 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die at a 12 nm process. The Radeon Pro 5300 uses 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die at a 7 nm process. The Radeon’s transistor density is 40.5M / mm² versus 25.9M / mm² for the Quadro.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements for each?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro GV100 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, one 8-pin connector, a 600 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is fundamental. AMD uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, produced by TSMC on a 7 nm process. NVIDIA’s Quadro GV100 relies on the GV100 chip with Volta architecture, also from TSMC but on a 12 nm node. The process difference is notable: 7 nm versus 12 nm, which explains why AMD packs 6,400 million transistors into just 158 mm², yielding a density of 40.5M / mm². NVIDIA spreads 21,100 million transistors across 815 mm², achieving 25.9M / mm². The Quadro’s die is over 5x larger physically.

Feature sets diverge significantly. The Quadro GV100 includes 640 tensor cores, which are absent from the Radeon’s specification sheet. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Shading resources differ by a wide margin. The Radeon has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. That is exactly 4x the shaders, 4x the TMUs, and 4x the ROPs. The pixel rate reflects this: 52.80 GPixel/s for the Radeon versus 208.3 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 132.0 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Radeon uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro uses 32 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Radeon’s memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while the Quadro’s memory runs at 848 MHz with 1696 Mbps effective. The Quadro compensates with a vastly wider bus and higher bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points to two different workloads entirely. For compute-heavy professional tasks, especially those leveraging FP16 or tensor operations, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is decisively stronger. It delivers 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16, while the Radeon Pro 5300 offers 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16. The Quadro also has 640 tensor cores, which the Radeon lacks entirely. The 32 GB HBM2 frame buffer with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth suits large datasets, while the Radeon’s 4 GB GDDR6 at 224.0 GB/s is far more limited.

However, the benchmark average tells a counterintuitive story. The Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40,870 against the Quadro’s 35,520. The Radeon also sits at the 82nd percentile versus the Quadro’s 80th. The database’s nearest rivals for the Radeon include the RTX 3080 Ti (41,187, -0.8%) and the RTX 5070 (40,377, +1.2%), while the Quadro’s rivals include the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435, +0.2%) and the Radeon Pro Duo (35,860, -0.9%). This average score includes tests where the Quadro’s legacy DirectX results drag it down, such as 140 in PassMark DX10, 168 in DX11, 84 in DX12, and 207 in DX9. The Radeon only has Geekbench scores, which are generally higher.

For GPU compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro wins decisively: 150,004 versus 38,747 in OpenCL and 139,526 versus 35,793 in Vulkan. If the workload is modern compute or rendering APIs, the Quadro is the rational pick. If the workload aligns with the Geekbench Metal/OpenCL/Vulkan tests that favor the Radeon’s architecture, or if power and space constraints matter, the Radeon Pro 5300 may be sufficient. The Quadro also has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Radeon has none. The Radeon is integrated, uses no power connector, and requires a 250 W PSU, whereas the Quadro needs a dual-slot card, one 8-pin connector, and a 600 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 | NVIDIA Quadro GV100 |

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

| Chip | Navi 14 | GV100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Volta |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1132 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz | 1627 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 868.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 80 | 320 |

| ROPs | 32 | 128 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 640 |

| FP32 | 4.224 TFLOPS | 16.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) | 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Launch MSRP | None | 8,999 USD |

The memory clock numbers differ in presentation: the Radeon lists 1750 MHz and 14 Gbps effective, while the Quadro lists 848 MHz and 1696 Mbps effective. The pixel rate of the Radeon is 52.80 GPixel/s, the Quadro’s 208.3 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 132.0 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s. The Radeon’s average benchmark score is 40,870, the Quadro’s 35,520.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons, both won by the NVIDIA Quadro GV100.

Geekbench OpenCL: The Quadro scores 150,004 against the Radeon’s 38,747, a delta of -74.2% for the Radeon. This is a massive gap, nearly 4x the raw score. The OpenCL test stresses raw compute, and the Quadro’s 5,120 shading units, tensor cores, and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth dominate the Radeon’s 1,280 shaders and 224.0 GB/s.

Geekbench Vulkan: The Quadro scores 139,526 versus the Radeon’s 35,793, a delta of -74.3%. The pattern repeats. The Quadro’s 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 translate directly into Vulkan compute performance. The Radeon’s 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 are far behind.

The 74% deficit in each test is nearly identical, suggesting a consistent raw throughput gap. The Quadro’s 4x shading units, 4x TMUs, 4x ROPs, and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth explain the margin. The Radeon’s higher boost clock (1650 MHz vs 1627 MHz) and smaller die do not compensate for the sheer resource advantage of the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. In OpenCL and Vulkan compute, it is 74% ahead of the Radeon Pro 5300. The Quadro also offers 640 tensor cores, which the Radeon lacks entirely, making it the only option for tensor-accelerated workloads. With 32 GB of HBM2 memory and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, the Quadro is suited for large datasets, deep learning models, or high-resolution textures. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs mean it can drive professional displays directly, while the Radeon has no outputs. The Quadro also has a higher base clock (1132 MHz vs 1000 MHz) and a higher boost clock (1627 MHz vs 1650 MHz, though the Radeon’s boost is higher).

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 wins in other aspects. It has a higher average benchmark score (40,870 vs 35,520) and a higher percentile rank (82nd vs 80th). It is built on a smaller 7 nm process with a higher transistor density (40.5M / mm² vs 25.9M / mm²). The Radeon has a higher memory clock (1750 MHz vs 848 MHz) and a faster PCIe interface (4.0 x8 vs 3.0 x16). It is an integrated GPU with an 85 W TDP, no power connector, and a 250 W PSU suggestion, which means it can fit in systems where a dual-slot, 250 W, 600 W PSU card cannot. The Radeon’s die size is 158 mm² versus 815 mm², so it consumes far less silicon area.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, tensor operations, memory capacity, or display outputs, the Quadro GV100 is the only choice based on the data. For users prioritizing system integration, power efficiency, or overall benchmark average in the recorded tests, the Radeon Pro 5300 appears more favorable. The Quadro’s legacy PassMark scores (140 in DX10, 168 in DX11, 84 in DX12, 207 in DX9) are low, likely pulling down its average. The Radeon has no such low-scoring tests in the database.