GPU Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A6000 dominates the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 in every shared benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A6000 scores 193,937 versus 38,747 for the Pro 5300, a 400.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A6000 scores 164,462 versus 35,793, a 359.5% lead.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A6000 has an average benchmark score of 44,075, while the Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40,870. The A6000 sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, with the Pro 5300 close behind at the 82nd percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The A6000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, which scores 44,795 (1.6% higher), followed by the RTX 4090 Mobile at 43,667 (0.9% lower). The Pro 5300's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti at 41,187 (0.8% higher), with the RTX 5070 at 40,377 (1.2% lower).

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The RTX A6000 features 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300 has only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The A6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5300 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A6000 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W power supply with an 8-pin EPS connector. The Radeon Pro 5300 has an 85 W TDP, requires only a 250 W power supply, and has no power connectors.

# Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A6000 and AMD Radeon Pro 5300 are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The A6000 uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die with a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The Pro 5300 uses AMD's RDNA 1.0 architecture on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die at 40.5 million per mm².

The GPU configuration diverges sharply. The A6000 features 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, 112 ROPs, 84 RT cores, and 336 tensor cores. The Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores at all. This makes the A6000 a full-featured workstation GPU with dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware, while the Pro 5300 lacks both capabilities.

Clock speeds differ meaningfully. The A6000 runs at a 1410 MHz base clock and 1800 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Pro 5300 has a 1000 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The A6000's higher clocks, combined with its massively larger shader count, yield a FP32 throughput of 38.71 TFLOPS versus 4.224 TFLOPS for the Pro 5300. Interestingly, the A6000 delivers FP16 at the same 38.71 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Pro 5300 achieves 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio.

The memory subsystem is another major separation point. The A6000 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 5300 offers 4 GB across a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s. This 3.4x bandwidth gap and 12x capacity gap fundamentally changes what workloads each card can handle.

Physical and interface differences also exist. The A6000 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, using a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Pro 5300 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no display outputs, using a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The A6000 carries a 300 W TDP with an 8-pin EPS connector, while the Pro 5300 draws only 85 W with no power connectors.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A6000 is the superior workstation GPU by every measurable metric. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available, the A6000 wins both outright, Geekbench OpenCL by 400.5% and Geekbench Vulkan by 359.5%. The 84th percentile ranking for the A6000 versus 82nd for the Pro 5300 confirms the A6000 sits higher in the overall GPU hierarchy, despite the Pro 5300's surprisingly close average score of 40,870 versus 44,075.

The A6000 is the clear choice for professionals requiring maximum compute throughput, massive memory capacity, and hardware ray tracing. Its 48 GB frame buffer and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the Pro 5300's 4 GB and 224.0 GB/s. The A6000's 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 performance is roughly nine times that of the Pro 5300, making it suitable for rendering, simulation, AI inference, and large dataset processing.

The Radeon Pro 5300 serves a fundamentally different purpose. As an IGP with no display outputs, it is designed for embedded or Apple Mac integration scenarios where space and power are constrained. Its 85 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU requirement make it far easier to integrate into compact systems. However, its 4 GB memory and 4.224 TFLOPS FP32 performance limit it to lighter workloads like basic 3D modeling or video playback acceleration.

For anyone choosing between these two for a workstation, the A6000 is the only rational option unless the 85 W power envelope and IGP form factor are absolute requirements. The performance gap is so large that the Pro 5300 cannot handle the same class of workloads.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

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

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1410 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1800 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10752 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 336 | 80 |

| ROPs | 112 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 84 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 38.71 TFLOPS | 4.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 38.71 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 201.6 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 604.8 GTexel/s | 132.0 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 300 W | 85 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 250 W |

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

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

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

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a stark story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A6000 scores 193,937 against the AMD Radeon Pro 5300's 38,747, producing a delta of 400.5%. This is not a marginal win, the A6000 delivers five times the OpenCL compute performance. The gap reflects the A6000's 10,752 shading units versus 1,280, plus its 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 output versus 4.224 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A6000 scores 164,462 versus 35,793 for the Pro 5300, a 359.5% advantage. The slightly smaller delta in Vulkan compared to OpenCL suggests the Pro 5300's RDNA architecture handles Vulkan relatively better, but the absolute difference remains overwhelming. The A6000's 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores may contribute to its Vulkan efficiency, though the benchmark does not isolate those features.

The A6000 wins both head-to-head contests, giving it a 2-0 record. The Pro 5300 has no benchmark wins. The A6000's pixel rate of 201.6 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 604.8 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s further explain why the A6000 dominates in any graphics-bound test.

It is worth noting the Pro 5300 has an additional benchmark not shared with the A6000: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 48,070. This is a Mac-specific API test, and the A6000 has no equivalent score in the data. The Pro 5300's inclusion of Metal support aligns with its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation label, indicating its target platform.

# Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA RTX A6000, For heavy compute and professional visualization: The A6000 wins in every shared benchmark category. Its 400.5% OpenCL lead and 359.5% Vulkan lead make it the definitive choice for GPU compute workloads like rendering, simulation, scientific computing, and machine learning. The 48 GB memory capacity and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth handle large datasets that would exhaust the Pro 5300's 4 GB frame buffer. Hardware RT cores and tensor cores enable ray-traced rendering and AI acceleration, features entirely absent from the Pro 5300. The four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups, and the dual-slot design with 8-pin EPS power delivery supports sustained high-performance operation. The A6000's 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance are both roughly nine times the Pro 5300's FP32 output, making it suitable for the most demanding workstation tasks.

AMD Radeon Pro 5300, For power-constrained, embedded Mac systems: The Pro 5300 wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 85 W TDP with no power connectors and 250 W suggested PSU requirement make it far easier to integrate into compact systems. As an IGP with no display outputs, it is designed for Apple Mac integration where the GPU works alongside a separate display controller. The 7 nm TSMC process gives it a smaller die (158 mm² versus 628 mm²) and lower transistor count (6,400 million versus 28,300 million), which contributes to its power efficiency. Its Metal benchmark score of 48,070 indicates reasonable performance in Apple's graphics API. The Pro 5300 also supports FP16 at 8.448 TFLOPS, double its FP32 rate, which can benefit certain compute tasks. However, with only 4 GB of memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, it is limited to lighter workloads like basic 3D modeling, video playback, or UI acceleration. The 82nd percentile ranking shows it is not a weak GPU overall, but it operates in a completely different performance class than the A6000.