AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Metal benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 33,626 against 29,003 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, a 15.9% advantage in favor of the 5300M.

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

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M leads in Geekbench OpenCL by 20.8% (29,252 vs. 24,217) and in Passmark GPU Compute by 29.5% (2,658 vs. 2,053). The WX 5100 has a higher theoretical FP32 rating of 3.892 TFLOPS versus 3.200 TFLOPS, but the recorded benchmark data does not reflect that in compute performance.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and does it matter for the results?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Despite having half the capacity and a narrower bus, the 5300M achieves higher memory bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins?

A: Yes, the WX 5100 wins in three tests: DirectX 12 (26 vs. 25, a 3.8% edge), DirectX 9 (88 vs. 80, a 9.1% edge), and Passmark G2D (777 vs. 582, a 25.1% edge).

Q: What is the overall benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has an average benchmark score of 10,013, placing it at the 48th percentile among all GPUs. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 averages 8,863, at the 44th percentile. The 5300M wins 7 of the 10 head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the architecture generations for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process with the Navi 14 chip. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with the Ellesmere chip.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 represent two distinct architectural eras from AMD. The 5300M is built on RDNA 1.0, the first generation of AMD's modern gaming-oriented architecture, while the WX 5100 is based on the older GCN 4.0 design. This fundamental split drives almost every measurable difference in the database.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator. The 5300M uses TSMC's 7 nm node, while the WX 5100 uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node. This process advantage allows the 5300M to pack 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The WX 5100, despite having fewer transistors at 5,700 million, requires a much larger 232 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 24.6 million per square millimeter. The 5300M is the more efficient design in terms of density.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The 5300M runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and boosts to 1250 MHz. The WX 5100 starts at a lower 713 MHz base but boosts to 1086 MHz. The memory clocks tell a similar story: the 5300M uses 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the WX 5100 uses 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) GDDR5. This explains the bandwidth reversal despite the WX 5100's wider 256-bit bus.

The compute unit configurations diverge as well. The 5300M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The WX 5100 has more shading units at 1,792, more TMUs at 112, and the same 32 ROPs. This gives the WX 5100 a higher theoretical texture rate of 121.6 GTexel/s versus 100.0 GTexel/s for the 5300M, and a higher FP32 rating of 3.892 TFLOPS versus 3.200 TFLOPS. The 5300M counters with a higher pixel rate of 40.00 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s.

FP16 performance is another architectural difference. The 5300M achieves 6.400 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can double its FP32 throughput for half-precision work. The WX 5100 runs FP16 at 3.892 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, offering no such acceleration. This is a direct consequence of RDNA's dedicated half-precision path versus GCN's unified shader design.

API support differs slightly. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the 5300M supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 5100 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. The bus interface also differs: the 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the WX 5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Power consumption is notable. The 5300M has a TDP of 85 W, while the WX 5100 is rated at 75 W. Both use no external power connectors. The WX 5100 is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm long and 112 mm high, with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The 5300M is a mobile part with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M as the faster card in most workloads. It wins 7 of the 10 head-to-head benchmarks, including all three Geekbench tests and both Passmark compute tests. Its average benchmark score of 10,013 is 13.0% higher than the WX 5100's 8,863, and it sits at the 48th percentile versus the 44th percentile for the WX 5100.

The 5300M is the choice for anyone prioritizing Metal performance, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan rendering. Its 15.9% lead in Geekbench Metal and 20.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL are substantial margins. The 29.5% advantage in Passmark GPU Compute makes it the clear pick for general compute tasks.

The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has specific strengths. It wins the DirectX 9 and DirectX 12 tests by small margins, and its Passmark G2D score of 777 is 25.1% higher than the 5300M's 582. This suggests the WX 5100 handles 2D desktop workloads and legacy DirectX paths better. Its 8 GB memory capacity also gives it a capacity advantage for large datasets, though the 5300M's higher bandwidth partially compensates.

For modern GPU compute and graphics acceleration, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior choice based on benchmark data. For users running older DirectX 9 applications or requiring extensive 2D rendering, the WX 5100 holds an edge. The 5300M's newer architecture and higher memory bandwidth make it the more future-proof option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5300M | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 713 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1250 MHz | 1086 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 80 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.00 GPixel/s | 34.75 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.0 GTexel/s | 121.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.200 TFLOPS | 3.892 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 75 W |

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

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Slot Width | N/A | Single-slot |

| Dimensions | N/A | 173 mm (6.8 inches) x 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 250 W |

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2016-11-17 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 499 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M come in compute and modern graphics tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 5300M scores 29,252 against 24,217 for the WX 5100, a 20.8% advantage. The Passmark GPU Compute test shows an even larger gap: 2,658 versus 2,053, a 29.5% lead for the 5300M. These are the two biggest margins in the entire comparison.

Geekbench Metal is another strong showing for the 5300M. It scores 33,626 versus 29,003, a 15.9% advantage. This is particularly relevant for Apple ecosystem workloads, as Metal is the primary GPU API on macOS. The 5300M also wins Geekbench Vulkan by a smaller 3.7% margin (27,912 vs. 26,909), showing it maintains a lead across modern APIs.

In the DirectX 10 test, the 5300M wins 36 versus 29, a 24.1% advantage. The DirectX 11 test is much closer, with the 5300M winning 37 versus 36, just a 2.8% edge. Passmark G3D, a general 3D graphics test, goes to the 5300M at 5,918 versus 5,496, a 7.7% lead.

The WX 5100's wins are more modest in magnitude but notable in specific areas. Its largest win is in Passmark G2D, where it scores 777 against 582, a 25.1% advantage. This is the only benchmark with a double-digit margin for the WX 5100. In DirectX 9, it wins 88 versus 80, a 9.1% edge. The DirectX 12 test is the closest of all, with the WX 5100 winning 26 versus 25, just a 3.8% difference.

The overall pattern is clear: the 5300M dominates in compute-heavy and modern API workloads, while the WX 5100 excels in 2D graphics and legacy DirectX paths. The 5300M's seven wins include all the high-impact tests, while the WX 5100's three wins are confined to niche areas.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the winner for compute-intensive professional workloads. Its 29.5% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 20.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL make it the stronger choice for tasks like rendering, simulation, or data processing that rely on raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. The 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, despite the narrower 128-bit bus, gives it a memory throughput advantage that shows up in these tests.

For Metal-based applications, the 5300M is clearly superior. The 15.9% advantage in Geekbench Metal means macOS applications that leverage Metal will see meaningful performance gains. This is also the newer card, released in 2019 versus 2016 for the WX 5100, and its RDNA 1.0 architecture supports newer API features like DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4.

The 5300M also wins in general 3D graphics, as shown by its 7.7% lead in Passmark G3D. Its higher pixel rate of 40.00 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s contributes to this, even though the WX 5100 has a higher texture rate. For most modern 3D rendering workloads, the 5300M is the better performer.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has its own niche. Its 25.1% lead in Passmark G2D makes it the better choice for 2D-heavy workflows such as desktop compositing, CAD drawing views, or spreadsheet-heavy applications that stress the 2D engine. The 777 G2D score is substantially higher than the 5300M's 582.

For legacy DirectX 9 applications, the WX 5100 holds a 9.1% advantage. Users running older software that relies on DirectX 9 paths will see better performance on the WX 5100. The DirectX 12 test is nearly tied, with the WX 5100 ahead by just 3.8%, so this is not a significant differentiator.

The WX 5100 also offers double the memory capacity at 8 GB versus 4 GB. While the 5300M has higher bandwidth, the WX 5100 can hold larger datasets in VRAM, which may benefit certain large-texture or multi-layer workloads. Its desktop form factor with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs makes it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the 5300M is a mobile part with dependent display outputs.

In summary, the 5300M wins for modern compute, Metal, and most 3D workloads. The WX 5100 wins for 2D performance, legacy DirectX 9, and scenarios requiring more memory capacity.