AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M sit at opposite ends of the mobile GPU spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, separated by a mere 0.6%. The R9 M375, a 2015-era part built on GCN 1.0, posts an average score of 10,070, while the 2019 Pro 5300M, based on RDNA 1.0, averages 10,013. However, this statistical tie masks a massive performance gulf in individual workloads, where the newer architecture dominates by overwhelming margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data tells a story of total generational supremacy. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 manages just 10,457. That translates to a deltaPct of -64.3% for the older card — meaning the Pro 5300M is roughly 2.8 times faster in this compute-heavy test. The margin is even steeper in Geekbench Vulkan: the Pro 5300M reaches 27,912, while the R9 M375 trails at 9,682, a deltaPct of -65.3%. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a fundamental leap in raw throughput.

The R9 M375 wins zero head-to-head comparisons. Every recorded benchmark favors the Pro 5300M. The closest the older card gets is in the aggregate average, where its 10,070 score edges the Pro 5300M’s 10,013 — a 0.6% advantage that flips the narrative. This oddity stems from benchmark selection: the R9 M375’s two scores (OpenCL and Vulkan) are both in the 9,000–10,500 range, while the Pro 5300M’s average includes several Passmark tests where it scores dramatically lower. For instance, the Pro 5300M scores just 25 in Passmark DirectX 12 and 36 in DirectX 10, dragging its average down despite its OpenCL and Vulkan dominance.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the R9 M375 sits in a tight cluster. It is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959), but 2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273). The Pro 5300M, meanwhile, trails the Quadro K5100M by 0.3% and the GTX 870M by 0.5%, while leading the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 by 1.7%. Both cards occupy the 48th percentile of all GPUs, placing them in the mid-range of the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for anyone needing raw compute performance: the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior GPU. In OpenCL, it delivers 29,252 points versus 10,457 — a 64.3% gap that makes the R9 M375 look like a relic. In Vulkan, the margin is 65.3%, with scores of 27,912 and 9,682 respectively. If your workload leverages these APIs, the choice is simple: the Pro 5300M wins decisively.

However, the aggregate average tells a different story for those who rely on diverse legacy workloads. The R9 M375’s average of 10,070 slightly bests the Pro 5300M’s 10,013. This is because the Pro 5300M’s Passmark DirectX scores are surprisingly low — 25 in DirectX 12, 36 in DirectX 10, and 37 in DirectX 11 — while the R9 M375 has no recorded Passmark results to drag its average down. For users running older DirectX titles or applications that favor the GCN architecture, the R9 M375 may hold its own or even edge ahead.

Who should pick which? Choose the Pro 5300M for modern compute tasks, Vulkan-based games, or any workload that benefits from its 2.8x OpenCL advantage. Choose the R9 M375 only if you are constrained to legacy software that performs poorly on newer architectures, or if the aggregate score parity reflects your specific use case. The Pro 5300M’s higher memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) and larger 4 GB frame buffer make it the clear choice for texture-heavy or high-resolution work. The R9 M375’s 2 GB DDR3 memory is a bottleneck by comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Pro 5300M, in contrast, uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, on a 7 nm process — also TSMC — with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, achieving 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. That is a 3.3x improvement in density.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Pro 5300M doubles each of these: 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This doubling is reflected in the pixel and texture rates. The Pro 5300M achieves 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s, versus the R9 M375’s 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput tells the same story: the Pro 5300M delivers 3.200 TFLOPS, while the R9 M375 manages 1,299.2 GFLOPS (1.299 TFLOPS). The Pro 5300M also supports FP16 at 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R9 M375 has no recorded FP16 capability.

DirectX support differs as well. The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Pro 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions differ: 1.2.170 for the R9 M375 and 1.4 for the Pro 5300M. The Pro 5300M also has a TDP of 85 W, while the R9 M375 has no recorded TDP — a notable omission suggesting the older card may have a power draw that was not officially disclosed. The Pro 5300M requires no power connectors, indicating it is designed for portable devices.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every measurable field. Memory is a major differentiator: the R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth — a 6.7x increase. Memory clocks also differ: the R9 M375 runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the Pro 5300M runs at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds show the Pro 5300M’s advantage. Both have a 1000 MHz base clock, but the Pro 5300M boosts to 1250 MHz, while the R9 M375 tops out at 1015 MHz. The bus interface differs: the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Pro 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Pro 5300M’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the R9 M375 lists no outputs. The Pro 5300M’s generation is "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile)," while the R9 M375 is "Gem System (R9 M300)."

Release dates are over four years apart: the R9 M375 launched on May 4, 2015, and the Pro 5300M on November 12, 2019. Both are end-of-life. The R9 M375’s predecessor is "Solar System" and successor is "Polaris Mobile," while the Pro 5300M lists neither. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 edges out the Pro 5300M with an average score of 10,070 versus 10,013, a 0.6% difference.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Pro 5300M scores 29,252, while the R9 M375 scores 10,457 — a deltaPct of -64.3% in favor of the Pro 5300M.

Q: Do both GPUs support Vulkan?

A: Yes, but with different versions: the R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Pro 5300M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro 5300M delivers 192.0 GB/s, while the R9 M375 provides 28.80 GB/s — a 6.7x advantage for the newer card.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Pro 5300M has 1,280 shading units, exactly double the R9 M375’s 640 shading units.

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: No. The R9 M375 uses a 28 nm process, while the Pro 5300M uses a 7 nm process; both are fabricated by TSMC.