AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database shows a single direct head-to-head comparison between these two mobile GPUs, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins the only shared test, the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, by a margin of 230.5%. That is not a narrow victory; it is a generational gap expressed in raw performance terms.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the newer and far more capable part. It posts an average benchmark score of 10013 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X, by contrast, averages just 8851 across its single recorded test, sitting at the 44th percentile. The Pro 5300M also has a wider benchmark portfolio: it has recorded scores in Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, plus PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. The R9 M265X has only one recorded result, OpenCL.

Where does each win? The Pro 5300M wins on every axis where data exists. It wins compute, it wins graphics, it wins the only direct comparison. The R9 M265X does not have a single recorded victory in the database. For use cases involving modern APIs, higher resolutions, or compute workloads, the Pro 5300M is the only rational choice based on the recorded numbers. For legacy 1080p gaming or basic display output, the R9 M265X can still function, but the data does not support any performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X uses the Venus chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter.

The Pro 5300M belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation (Navi Mobile), while the R9 M265X is part of the Gem System (R9 M200) family. The Pro 5300M was released on 2019-11-12; the R9 M265X came out on 2014-03-20. That five-year gap explains much of the performance difference.

Shading units tell the story: the Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The R9 M265X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is exactly double the compute resources in every category for the newer card.

Memory also differs substantially. The Pro 5300M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M265X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s. The Pro 5300M has three times the bandwidth.

Clock speeds are higher on the Pro 5300M: 1000 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost, versus 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost on the R9 M265X. The Pro 5300M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 M265X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support favors the newer card: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, and the Pro 5300M adds FP16 compute at 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) while the R9 M265X lists no FP16 support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851. The delta is 230.5% in favor of the Pro 5300M. That means the newer GPU delivers roughly 3.3 times the OpenCL compute performance of the older part.

To put that in context, the Pro 5300M's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (average score 10043, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959, +0.5%), the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10070, -0.6%), and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846, +1.7%). The Pro 5300M essentially trades blows with these mid-range desktop and mobile parts from a similar era.

The R9 M265X's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863, -0.1%), the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, -0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, +1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743, +1.2%). The R9 M265X sits in the same performance neighborhood as these parts, but it is the oldest and lowest-scoring member of that group.

Other recorded benchmarks for the Pro 5300M show its broader capability. It scores 33626 in Geekbench Metal, 27912 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 5918 in PassMark G3D. It also posts 582 in PassMark G2D, 2658 in GPU compute, and low but non-zero scores in legacy DirectX tests: 36 in DX10, 37 in DX11, 25 in DX12, and 80 in DX9. The R9 M265X has no comparable data, so the database cannot confirm how it handles those workloads. The single OpenCL result is the only evidence available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29252 versus 8851 for the R9 M265X, a 230.5% advantage.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. The Pro 5300M delivers triple the bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The Pro 5300M was released on 2019-11-12; the R9 M265X on 2014-03-20.

Q: What API levels do they support?

A: The Pro 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do they compare in pixel and texture rates?

A: The Pro 5300M has a pixel rate of 40.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 100.0 GTexel/s. The R9 M265X has 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s. The Pro 5300M is 4x faster in both.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M265X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Pro 5300M doubles each count.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior GPU in every recorded metric. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 230.5%, has a higher average benchmark score (10013 versus 8851), and ranks higher in the database percentile (48th versus 44th). It also has a much broader benchmark footprint, with recorded results across nine different tests compared to the R9 M265X's single OpenCL score.

Who should pick the Pro 5300M? Anyone running modern compute workloads, creative applications, or games that use DirectX 12, Vulkan, or Metal. The recorded scores in Metal (33626) and Vulkan (27912) show strong cross-API performance. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a solid foundation for 1080p gaming and moderate content creation. The 7 nm RDNA 1.0 architecture delivers modern features like FP16 compute at 6.400 TFLOPS.

Who should pick the R9 M265X? The database offers little support for choosing it today. Its single recorded OpenCL score of 8851 places it behind the Pro 5300M by a factor of more than three. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth limit it to older, lighter workloads. Its 28 nm GCN 1.0 architecture lacks modern API support, with Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1) as the maximum. It could still serve as a basic display adapter or for legacy software that does not require newer GPU features, but the recorded performance data does not recommend it for any demanding task.

The Pro 5300M's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M and AMD Radeon R9 M375, have average scores within 1% of the Pro 5300M. That places it in a competitive mid-range tier for its era. The R9 M265X's nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, show it at the bottom of a similar tier. The verdict is clear: the Pro 5300M is the choice for anyone needing real GPU performance; the R9 M265X is a legacy part with no recorded advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5300M | AMD Radeon R9 M265X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 1,500 million |

| Die size | 158 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor density | 40.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 575 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1250 MHz | 625 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 640 |

| TMUs | 80 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 40.00 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 100.0 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 3.200 TFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 85 W | Not specified |

| Power connectors | None | Not specified |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release date | 2019-11-12 | 2014-03-20 |