AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits this comparison into a clear, one-sided outcome. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, taking both available tests. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X does not register a single win in any shared workload. This is not a close contest by any metric; the Pro 5300M leads by a margin that places the two GPUs in entirely different performance tiers.

The Pro 5300M dominates in compute-oriented workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29252 against 8273 for the R9 M375X, a delta of 253.6%. That is not an incremental gain, it is a generational leap in raw throughput. The same pattern appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro 5300M scores 27912 versus 8377, a 233.2% advantage. If the workload is GPU compute, the Pro 5300M is the only serious option between these two.

The R9 M375X has no redeeming benchmark win to point to. Its strengths, if any, do not surface in the recorded data. The database shows zero wins for the older part. In terms of percentile ranking, the Pro 5300M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M375X sits at the 43rd. That five-point gap reflects the overall average score difference: 10013 for the Pro 5300M versus 8325 for the R9 M375X.

For use-case planning, the verdict is straightforward. The Pro 5300M is the choice for any task that touches OpenCL or Vulkan compute, which covers most modern GPU-accelerated applications. The R9 M375X, based on the data, should only be considered if the workload is so light that even its much lower scores are sufficient, and even then the Pro 5300M offers no downside in the shared metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm. That is four generations of lithography advancement, and it shows in nearly every measurable spec.

Transistor counts tell the story of design density. The Pro 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The R9 M375X contains only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Pro 5300M is not just more powerful, it is more than three times denser in terms of transistor packing.

The compute resources differ by a factor of two across the board. The Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Every unit count is exactly double on the newer part. This is a clean architectural scaling: same design ratios, but the RDNA implementation doubles the execution resources.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Pro 5300M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective, producing 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 1125 MHz and 4.5 Gbps effective, producing 72.00 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is 2.67x in favor of the Pro 5300M, which directly impacts texture-heavy and compute-heavy workloads.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 on the Pro 5300M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the R9 M375X. Despite the older part having more lanes, the newer PCIe 4.0 standard on the Pro 5300M provides higher per-lane throughput. API support follows the generational split: the Pro 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two shared tests, and both are landslides. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8273. The delta is 253.6%, meaning the Pro 5300M is roughly three and a half times faster in this compute test. This is the largest margin in the recorded data and reflects the combined effect of doubled shader count, higher clocks, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 5300M scores 27912 against 8377 for the R9 M375X, a delta of 233.2%. The margin is slightly smaller than OpenCL but still overwhelming. Vulkan performance tracks the same architectural advantages: more compute units, newer instruction scheduling, and faster memory subsystem. The R9 M375X cannot close the gap even in a modern low-level API.

The average benchmark scores from the broader database reinforce these head-to-head results. The Pro 5300M averages 10013 across all recorded tests, while the R9 M375X averages 8325. That is a 20.3% overall advantage for the Pro 5300M, though the head-to-head deltas are far larger because they isolate the two most compute-relevant tests.

The Pro 5300M's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10043, delta -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959, delta 0.5%), AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10070, delta -0.6%), and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846, delta 1.7%). These are all within a 2% band, meaning the Pro 5300M sits squarely in a competitive cluster of mid-range mobile and workstation parts. The R9 M375X, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8265, delta 0.7%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, delta -1.2%), AMD Radeon 880M (8436, delta -1.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458, delta -1.6%). The R9 M375X's cluster is roughly 17% below the Pro 5300M's cluster in average score.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows a clean generational split. The most consequential differences are:

• Process node: 7 nm (Pro 5300M) versus 28 nm (R9 M375X)
• Transistors: 6,400 million versus 1,500 million
• Die size: 158 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Transistor density: 40.5M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 925 MHz
• Boost clock: 1250 MHz versus 1015 MHz
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory clock: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 1280 versus 640
• Texture mapping units: 80 versus 40
• Render output units: 32 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 40.00 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 100.0 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 3.200 TFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1) versus null (not supported)
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.170

The TDP differs: the Pro 5300M is rated at 85 W, while the R9 M375X has no recorded TDP in the database. The Pro 5300M also lists power connectors as "None," indicating an integrated or slot-powered design. The R9 M375X has no power connector data recorded.

Release dates are far apart: the Pro 5300M launched on November 12, 2019, while the R9 M375X launched on May 4, 2015. The R9 M375X lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile." The Pro 5300M has no predecessor or successor recorded. Both are end-of-life parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 8273 for the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. That is a 253.6% advantage for the Pro 5300M.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Pro 5300M scores 27912 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R9 M375X scores 8377. The Pro 5300M leads by 233.2%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro 5300M has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The R9 M375X has 72.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: Do they use the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The Pro 5300M uses a 7 nm TSMC process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The R9 M375X uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, exactly double the 640 shading units found in the R9 M375X. The TMU and ROP counts are also doubled: 80 versus 40, and 32 versus 16, respectively.

Q: Is the R9 M375X competitive in any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows zero wins for the R9 M375X. It trails in both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan by margins exceeding 230%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior GPU in every recorded measurement. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a 20.3% higher average benchmark score, and sits five percentile points higher in the all-GPU ranking. For anyone choosing between these two, the Pro 5300M is the only defensible pick.

The R9 M375X belongs to an older hardware generation with half the shading units, one-third the memory bandwidth, and a process node four generations behind. Its only advantage is a lower TDP, but that figure is not recorded in the database, and it cannot compensate for the performance gap. The R9 M375X should only be selected if the workload is explicitly restricted to its exact specification envelope, which the data does not support.

The Pro 5300M, by contrast, delivers 3.200 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 6.400 TFLOPS of FP16 with 2:1 ratio, and 100.0 GTexel/s texture rate. It supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Its nearest rivals are all within a 2% band, placing it in a competitive mid-range tier. The R9 M375X's nearest rivals sit at a distinctly lower performance level.

The verdict: choose the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M for any compute, graphics, or mixed workload. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X is a legacy part that the benchmark data shows to be outclassed by a factor of more than three in the most relevant tests.