AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M are two end-of-life professional mobile GPUs that occupy very different positions in the benchmark database. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, but the two cards are designed for distinct use cases. The WX 3200 is a low-power, multi-display workstation card built on older GCN 4.0 architecture, while the 5300M is a mobile-first RDNA 1.0 part with significantly higher throughput. Benchmark results indicate that the 5300M dominates in every head-to-head comparison available, yet the WX 3200 holds its own in specific professional contexts due to its display output configuration and lower power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins decisively on raw compute performance. In the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded—Geekbench OpenCL—the 5300M scores 29,252 against the WX 3200's 11,228, a delta of -61.6% for the older card. This translates to roughly 2.6x the OpenCL performance. The 5300M also shows versatility across multiple API benchmarks: it scores 33,626 in Geekbench Metal, 27,912 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 5,918 in Passmark G3D. These numbers place it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,013 across all tests.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on connectivity and power efficiency. It features 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is a professional workstation staple for multi-monitor setups. The 5300M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies entirely on the host laptop's integrated display or external connections provided by the system. The WX 3200 also has a 65 W TDP compared to the 5300M's 85 W, and it requires only a 250 W suggested PSU, though the 5300M has no suggested PSU listed. For a fixed workstation with multiple screens, the WX 3200 provides a clear advantage in display flexibility that no benchmark score can capture.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the 5300M uses Navi 14 on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This node difference explains much of the performance disparity: the 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The WX 3200 has just 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, for a density of 21.4M per mm². The 5300M's die is 53% larger by area but holds nearly 3x the transistors.

Core counts reinforce the gap. The 5300M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—exactly half the shader count and TMUs, and half the ROPs. This leads to a 2x difference in pixel rate (40.00 GPixel/s vs 20.72 GPixel/s) and a 2.4x difference in texture rate (100.0 GTexel/s vs 41.44 GTexel/s). Floating-point performance follows suit: the 5300M delivers 3.200 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.400 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio).

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both cards have 4 GB and a 128-bit bus, but the 5300M uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 3200 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, for 96.00 GB/s—exactly half the bandwidth. The 5300M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the WX 3200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. API support differs as well: the 5300M lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 lists DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a rout. The 5300M scores 29,252, while the WX 3200 scores 11,228. The deltaPct of -61.6% indicates the WX 3200 trails by that margin. This is a 2.6x advantage for the 5300M, which aligns perfectly with the 2x shader count and 2x memory bandwidth of the newer card.

Beyond the direct comparison, the 5300M's other benchmark results provide context. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,626 is 15% higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting strong performance in Apple's ecosystem—consistent with its "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile)" generation naming. Its Vulkan score of 27,912 is close to its OpenCL score, indicating consistent cross-API performance. Passmark results show 5,918 in G3D and 2,658 in GPU Compute, which are lower than the Geekbench scores but still far above the WX 3200's single benchmark.

The WX 3200 has only one benchmark entry: Geekbench OpenCL at 11,228. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 (0% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (-0.3% delta), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.3% delta). This places the WX 3200 at the 50th percentile of all GPUs—exactly average. The 5300M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M at 10,043 (-0.3% delta), GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959 (0.5% delta), and AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070 (-0.6% delta), placing it at the 48th percentile despite having a higher raw OpenCL score.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For raw compute and modern API support, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the overwhelming choice. It offers 2.6x the OpenCL performance, 2x the memory bandwidth, double the shader count, and newer architecture (RDNA 1.0 vs GCN 4.0) on a more advanced 7 nm process. Its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 support future-proof it better than the WX 3200's Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0. The 5300M also provides a substantial FP16 advantage at 6.400 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS.

For fixed workstation deployments requiring multiple displays, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the only one of the two that supports such a configuration out of the box. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable quad-monitor setups without any adapter or dock dependency. The 5300M's "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs mean it cannot drive standalone displays natively. The WX 3200 also consumes 20 W less power (65 W vs 85 W) and has a single-slot form factor with no external power connectors required.

The 5300M's average benchmark score of 10,013 across all tests is lower than its OpenCL score alone due to the inclusion of low Passmark DirectX scores (25-80 range). This drags its percentile to 48, below the WX 3200's 50th percentile. However, the head-to-head OpenCL result is unambiguous: the 5300M wins by 161.5% (deltaPct of -61.6% from the WX 3200's perspective). Users prioritizing compute should disregard the average score and focus on the specific API benchmarks relevant to their workload. Users prioritizing display flexibility and lower power draw should ignore raw performance and select the WX 3200.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M. It scores 29,252 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11,228 for the WX 3200, a 2.6x advantage. It also has 3.200 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.400 TFLOPS FP16, compared to 1.658 TFLOPS for both on the WX 3200.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB, but the 5300M uses GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 3200 uses GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s. The bus width is identical at 128 bit.

Q: Can the Radeon Pro 5300M support multiple external displays?

A: No. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host device. The WX 3200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs for multi-monitor setups.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the 5300M has an 85 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The WX 3200 has an average benchmark score of 11,228 with a 50th percentile rank. The 5300M has an average score of 10,013 with a 48th percentile rank, despite its higher OpenCL score, due to lower scores in Passmark DirectX tests.