AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5300: The data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA card in every shared benchmark, with the RTX A2000 leading by margins that range from substantial to overwhelming. In the two head-to-head tests, the RTX A2000 wins both, with a 74.7% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 93% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. This is not a close contest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX A2000 dominates the Radeon Pro 5300 in both available comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 67695 against AMD's 38747, a delta of 74.7%. That is a massive gulf, indicating the RTX A2000 delivers nearly 75% more compute throughput in this API. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan: the RTX A2000 scores 69089, while the Radeon Pro 5300 manages only 35793, a 93% difference. In Vulkan, the NVIDIA card nearly doubles the AMD card's output.

These results align with the overall average benchmark scores. The RTX A2000 averages 46043 across all tests, while the Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40870. That is a 12.7% gap in favor of NVIDIA, though the head-to-head deltas are far larger. The disparity suggests the Radeon Pro 5300 performs relatively better in other workloads not shared between the two, but in the common tests, the NVIDIA card is clearly superior. The RTX A2000 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 85, compared to the Radeon Pro 5300's 82.

Looking at the rival contexts, the RTX A2000's average score of 46043 places it within 1% of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972, delta 0.2%) and the Intel Arc A730M (45592, delta 1%). It also sits just 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and Intel Arc A530M. The Radeon Pro 5300's average of 40870 puts it 0.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41187) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (40377). It leads the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40318) by 1.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40063) by 2%. These rival positions show that while both cards are in a similar performance tier, the RTX A2000 sits at the top of that tier, while the Radeon Pro 5300 sits near the bottom.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip on the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, built by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, with a density of 40.5M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is nearly twice as large in both transistor count and die area.

The compute resources differ sharply. The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. It also includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, giving it dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores and no tensor cores. This is a 2.6x advantage in shading units for NVIDIA, and a 1.3x advantage in TMUs. The ROP count is 1.5x higher on the NVIDIA card.

Clock behavior also differs. The RTX A2000 has a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5300 starts at 1000 MHz base and boosts to 1650 MHz. Despite the higher clocks, the AMD card cannot overcome the NVIDIA card's raw resource advantage. The resulting FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS for the RTX A2000 versus 4.224 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 5300, a 89% lead for NVIDIA. In FP16, the RTX A2000 also delivers 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Radeon Pro 5300 reaches 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), the one area where AMD posts a higher number.

Memory configurations reinforce the NVIDIA advantage. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers 50% more memory capacity and 28.6% more bandwidth. The RTX A2000 also has a wider PCIe interface at 4.0 x16 versus the Radeon Pro 5300's 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior card for raw performance. It wins every shared benchmark by a wide margin, offers more memory, more bandwidth, and more compute units. The Radeon Pro 5300's only advantages are a smaller die, lower power draw, and higher FP16 throughput, none of which translate into benchmark wins. For any workload represented by the Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan tests, the RTX A2000 is the clear choice.

The RTX A2000 also has a higher percentile ranking (85 vs 82) and a higher average benchmark score (46043 vs 40870). Its nearest rivals are all within a 1.2% band, meaning it competes at the level of much newer hardware like the RTX 5880 Ada Generation. The Radeon Pro 5300, by contrast, sits near the RTX 3080 Ti in average score, which is a much older high-end gaming card. The RTX A2000's 74.7% and 93% leads in head-to-head tests are not marginal; they represent a different performance class.

However, the Radeon Pro 5300 is not without merit. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no display outputs, designed for specific Mac systems. Its 85 W TDP is lower than the RTX A2000's 70 W? No — the data shows the RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, which is actually lower than the Radeon Pro 5300's 85 W. The RTX A2000 also requires no power connectors and fits in a dual-slot form factor, while the Radeon Pro 5300 is an IGP with no dimensions listed. For users who need a discrete card with display outputs, the RTX A2000 is the only option of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins with a score of 67695 against the AMD Radeon Pro 5300's 38747, a 74.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 69089 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon Pro 5300 scores 35793, giving NVIDIA a 93% lead.

Q: Does the AMD card have any compute advantage?

A: Yes, in FP16 throughput the Radeon Pro 5300 delivers 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), exceeding the RTX A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). However, this does not translate into wins in the shared benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A2000 averages 46043 across all benchmarks, compared to the Radeon Pro 5300's 40870.

Q: Do both cards have display outputs?

A: No. The RTX A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon Pro 5300 has no outputs and is classified as an IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins in every measured category that matters for general compute and graphics performance. It is 74.7% faster in OpenCL and 93% faster in Vulkan. It has more memory (6 GB vs 4 GB), more bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s), and more shading units (3328 vs 1280). It also has dedicated RT cores and tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference, features entirely absent from the Radeon Pro 5300. The RTX A2000's FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS, nearly double the Radeon Pro 5300's 4.224 TFLOPS.

The Radeon Pro 5300's wins are limited to specific technical specifications. It has a higher boost clock (1650 MHz vs 1200 MHz) and a higher memory clock (1750 MHz vs 1500 MHz). It achieves higher FP16 throughput at 8.448 TFLOPS. It is built on a more advanced 7 nm process from TSMC, versus the 8 nm Samsung node, and has a smaller die (158 mm² vs 276 mm²). Its 6,400 million transistors are fewer than the RTX A2000's 12,000 million, but it also consumes more power at 85 W TDP versus 70 W. None of these advantages appear in benchmark results.

For users prioritizing compute performance, the RTX A2000 is the only rational choice. For users who specifically need a 7 nm IGP with no display outputs for a Mac system, the Radeon Pro 5300 exists for that niche. The RTX A2000's launch MSRP is 449 USD. The Radeon Pro 5300 has no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 |

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

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3328 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 104 | 80 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 26 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 104 | None |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 4.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 85 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

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

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2021-08-09 | 2020-08-03 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 46043 | 40870 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 85 | 82 |

The RTX A2000 is newer, larger, more powerful, and more feature-rich. The Radeon Pro 5300 is older, smaller, and less capable. The specification table confirms the benchmark results: NVIDIA dominates in nearly every field that affects performance.