AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unambiguous picture: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins all ten recorded head-to-head tests, with no test favoring the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M. The largest single margin appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the 5500M scores 35134 against the 5300M's 27912, a 25.9% advantage. This is a substantial gap for two GPUs sharing the same architecture, and it suggests that the 5500M's additional execution resources translate directly into compute-heavy API performance.

The Geekbench Metal test, often the more relevant metric for macOS workloads, shows the 5500M at 38235 versus 33626 for the 5300M, a 13.7% lead. OpenCL results are closer: 31088 against 29252, a 6.3% margin. That narrower spread hints that the two cards are more evenly matched in certain general-purpose compute paths, yet the 5500M still holds the edge in every recorded scenario.

PassMark results follow a similar pattern. The DirectX 9 test shows a 20% delta (96 versus 80), while DirectX 11 lands at 13.5% (42 versus 37). DirectX 12 shows a 16% difference (29 versus 25), and even the 2D test, which is often less sensitive to raw shader throughput, favors the 5500M by 11.3% (648 versus 582). The G3D score sits at 6732 versus 5918, a 13.8% margin, and the GPU compute score widens further to 21.9% (3240 versus 2658). The only tie is DirectX 10, where both cards record a score of 36.

Looking at the broader database context, the 5500M holds an average benchmark score of 11528, placing it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA Tesla K20c at 11479, a delta of 0.4%, meaning the 5500M sits essentially at parity with that card. It also trails the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT by 0.8% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 by 1.3%, all within a very tight band. The 5300M, by contrast, averages 10013, which puts it at the 48th percentile. Its closest neighbor is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M at 10043, a 0.3% deficit, and it sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M. The gap between the two AMD parts, roughly 15% in average score, is far larger than the differences separating either card from its nearest rivals.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Navi 14 chip using RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Transistor count is identical at 6,400 million, and die size matches at 158 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 40.5M / mm². Both are classified under the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation and share an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both, and the API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences begin with the compute configuration. The 5500M carries 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. That translates into a 20% difference in shading units and TMUs, which is the primary driver behind the performance gap. The pixel rate for the 5500M is 46.40 GPixel/s versus 40.00 GPixel/s for the 5300M, a 16% advantage. Texture rate shows a larger split: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 100.0 GTexel/s, a 39.2% difference that reflects both the extra TMUs and the higher clock.

Clock speeds also differentiate the two. The base clock is identical at 1000 MHz, but the boost clock differs: 1450 MHz for the 5500M versus 1250 MHz for the 5300M. That 16% boost clock advantage compounds with the additional shader units. The FP32 throughput tells the story clearly: 4.454 TFLOPS for the 5500M versus 3.200 TFLOPS for the 5300M, a 39.2% gap. FP16 performance follows the same 2:1 ratio on both cards, with 8.909 TFLOPS versus 6.400 TFLOPS.

Memory is another differentiating factor, though not in bandwidth. Both cards use GDDR6 with a 128 bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both run the memory at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The difference is capacity: the 5500M has 8 GB, while the 5300M has 4 GB. The memory clock and bus width are identical, so the bandwidth ceiling is the same, but the larger frame buffer on the 5500M gives it more headroom for large textures and datasets. Both cards were released on the same date and are now marked end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has 1536 shading units, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has 1280, a difference of 256 units.

Q: Do the two cards share the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both have a 128 bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth with GDDR6 memory at 12 Gbps effective, but the 5500M has 8 GB capacity versus 4 GB on the 5300M.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The 5500M boosts to 1450 MHz, while the 5300M boosts to 1250 MHz. The base clock is 1000 MHz on both.

Q: How much faster is the 5500M in Geekbench Metal?

A: The 5500M scores 38235 versus 33626 for the 5300M, a 13.7% advantage.

Q: Are both cards built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use the 7 nm process at TSMC with the Navi 14 chip and RDNA 1.0 architecture.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The 5500M averages 11528, placing it at the 51st percentile, while the 5300M averages 10013, at the 48th percentile.

The Verdict

The data is decisive: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M in every recorded benchmark test, with deltas ranging from 6.3% in OpenCL to 25.9% in Vulkan. The average benchmark score gap is approximately 15.1%, and the 5500M sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs (51 versus 48). The 5500M also carries double the memory (8 GB versus 4 GB), which does not show up in raw compute scores but matters for workloads that exceed a 4 GB frame buffer. The 5300M, meanwhile, holds its own in the OpenCL test, where the margin narrows to 6.3%, and the DirectX 10 test is a tie at 36. But even in those cases, the 5500M never loses a single head-to-head comparison.

For users choosing between these two, the 5500M is the stronger option on every measured axis. The 5300M might be sufficient for lighter workloads where the 6.3% OpenCL gap is acceptable, but the 5500M's additional shading units, higher boost clock, and larger memory capacity make it the more capable part across the board. The only scenario where the 5300M makes sense is one where the 4 GB memory is not a limiting factor and the lower compute throughput is tolerable. The recorded data does not identify any test where the 5300M wins, so the verdict is straightforward.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. Shading units: 1536 on the 5500M versus 1280 on the 5300M. TMUs: 96 versus 80. ROPs are identical at 32. Boost clock: 1450 MHz versus 1250 MHz, with the base clock equal at 1000 MHz. Pixel rate: 46.40 GPixel/s versus 40.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 100.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.454 TFLOPS versus 3.200 TFLOPS. FP16: 8.909 TFLOPS versus 6.400 TFLOPS. Memory size: 8 GB versus 4 GB, with identical type (GDDR6), bus width (128 bit), and bandwidth (192.0 GB/s). All other specifications, including process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, TDP, power connectors, bus interface, display outputs, and API support, are the same.

Where Each One Wins

The 5500M wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest margins come in Geekbench Vulkan (25.9%), PassMark GPU Compute (21.9%), and PassMark DirectX 9 (20%). These are tests that stress raw compute throughput and shader execution, where the 5500M's 1536 shading units and 1450 MHz boost clock provide a clear advantage. The 5500M also wins the memory capacity comparison by offering 8 GB versus 4 GB, which is relevant for texture-heavy applications even though the bandwidth is identical.

The 5300M does not win any test outright, but it comes closest in Geekbench OpenCL, where the gap narrows to 6.3%. That suggests the 5300M is less disadvantaged in OpenCL-style workloads than in Vulkan or DirectX scenarios. The DirectX 10 test is a tie at 36, meaning the 5300M matches the 5500M in that specific legacy path. The 5300M also has the same 32 ROPs, 128 bit bus, and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth as the 5500M, so pixel-fill and memory-bandwidth-bound tasks will see a smaller relative difference than compute-bound tasks. Its lower power draw is not specified differently, as both are rated at 85 W, so there is no efficiency tradeoff to favor the 5300M in the recorded data. The 5300M's only practical advantage is its smaller 4 GB memory footprint, which may be sufficient for less demanding applications, but the benchmark scores do not reward that in any test.