AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs, but their benchmark profiles diverge sharply. The RX 6500M wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 10,362 versus 10,013 for the Pro 5300M. Both sit at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, yet the RX 6500M’s wins are often large, while the Pro 5300M’s single victory is substantial in its own right. This is a tale of a newer, faster architecture facing an older, more specialized part.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon RX 6500M as the clear pick for general and 3D performance. Its average benchmark score of 10,362 is 3.5% higher than the Pro 5300M’s 10,013, and it leads in compute, DirectX, and Vulkan workloads. The RX 6500M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, averages 10,400, a mere 0.4% difference, placing it in a similar performance class. For anyone running modern games or GPU-accelerated tasks that leverage DirectX 12 or Vulkan, the RX 6500M is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, despite losing the overall count, is not without a niche. Its passmark_g2d score of 582 beats the RX 6500M’s 385 by 33.8%, indicating superior 2D and desktop composition performance. This makes it the better option for tasks that are heavily dependent on 2D rendering, such as certain professional desktop workflows or legacy applications. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, averages 10,043, just 0.3% behind, showing it holds its own in its peer group.

Strictly from the data, the RX 6500M is the pick for performance seekers, while the Pro 5300M is only the pick if 2D throughput is the primary metric. There is no scenario in the benchmarks where the Pro 5300M wins on 3D or compute performance. The verdict is straightforward: choose the RX 6500M for almost everything, and consider the Pro 5300M only for 2D-centric workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M dominates the compute and 3D landscape. In geekbench_opencl, it scores 38,586 versus 29,252, a 31.9% advantage. In geekbench_vulkan, the gap widens to 57.1%, with scores of 43,837 and 27,912. This pattern repeats across DirectX tests: passmark_directx_11 shows an 89.2% lead (70 vs 37), and passmark_directx_12 shows a 36% lead (34 vs 25). The RX 6500M also wins passmark_g3d with 7,531 points, 27.3% ahead of the Pro 5300M’s 5,918.

The Pro 5300M’s sole win is in passmark_g2d, scoring 582 against 385, a 33.8% margin. This test measures 2D graphics performance, which is distinct from the 3D and compute workloads where the RX 6500M excels. The Pro 5300M also edges closer in passmark_gpu_compute, where the RX 6500M wins by only 0.4% (2,669 vs 2,658), a statistical tie. This suggests that for raw compute, the two are nearly equivalent, with the RX 6500M’s advantage being negligible.

For gaming and modern API workloads, the RX 6500M is the definitive winner. For 2D desktop acceleration, the Pro 5300M has a clear edge. The data shows a clean split: the RX 6500M wins every 3D and API-specific test, while the Pro 5300M wins the only 2D-specific test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and process nodes. The RX 6500M uses RDNA 2.0 on TSMC’s 6 nm process, while the Pro 5300M uses RDNA 1.0 on TSMC’s 7 nm process. This node advantage is significant; the RX 6500M packs 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The Pro 5300M has 6,400 million transistors on a larger 158 mm² die, with a lower density of 40.5M per mm².

The RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 5300M, which has none. This makes the RX 6500M compatible with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5300M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RX 6500M also has a higher boost clock at 2,400 MHz versus 1,250 MHz, and a higher base clock at 2,000 MHz versus 1,000 MHz. Its memory runs at 18 Gbps effective, compared to 12 Gbps on the Pro 5300M.

Despite having fewer shading units (1,024 vs 1,280) and TMUs (64 vs 80), the RX 6500M achieves higher fill rates: 76.80 GPixel/s versus 40.00 GPixel/s, and 153.6 GTexel/s versus 100.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 4.915 TFLOPS, far above the Pro 5300M’s 3.200 TFLOPS. The RX 6500M also has a narrower 64-bit memory bus compared to 128-bit, but its faster memory clock yields 144.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 192.0 GB/s, meaning the Pro 5300M has more bandwidth.

The RX 6500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the Pro 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 6500M has a lower TDP of 50 W, compared to 85 W for the Pro 5300M, making it more power-efficient. The Pro 5300M is part of the Radeon Pro Mac series, while the RX 6500M is from the Radeon RX 6000 series.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The RX 6500M has higher FP32 throughput at 4.915 TFLOPS versus 3.200 TFLOPS, and it wins geekbench_opencl by 31.9% (38,586 vs 29,252). However, passmark_gpu_compute shows a near tie, with the RX 6500M winning by 0.4% (2,669 vs 2,658).

Q: Does the Pro 5300M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Pro 5300M wins passmark_g2d, scoring 582 versus 385, a 33.8% lead. This is the only head-to-head test it wins out of nine.

Q: Is the RX 6500M better for modern games?

A: The data supports this. It wins passmark_directx_12 by 36% (34 vs 25) and geekbench_vulkan by 57.1% (43,837 vs 27,912), indicating stronger support for modern APIs.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Pro 5300M has more bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s, thanks to its 128-bit bus, compared to the RX 6500M’s 144.0 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. The RX 6500M compensates with a higher effective memory clock of 18 Gbps versus 12 Gbps.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than the Pro 5300M’s 85 W. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Do both support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Pro 5300M has none. This also means the RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, whereas the Pro 5300M only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the RX 6500M is in geekbench_vulkan, where it scores 43,837 against 27,912, a 57.1% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, highlighting a massive advantage in Vulkan-based workloads. The second-largest win is in passmark_directx_11, with an 89.2% lead (70 vs 37), showing a stark difference in DirectX 11 performance.

The RX 6500M also wins geekbench_opencl decisively, scoring 38,586 versus 29,252, a 31.9% margin. In passmark_g3d, it scores 7,531 versus 5,918, a 27.3% lead. Passmark_directx_10 shows a 44.4% win (52 vs 36), and passmark_directx_12 shows a 36% win (34 vs 25). Even passmark_directx_9, a legacy test, goes to the RX 6500M with a 15% margin (92 vs 80).

The Pro 5300M’s only win is passmark_g2d, where it scores 582 against 385, a 33.8% margin. This is a significant victory in 2D performance, but it is isolated. In passmark_gpu_compute, the RX 6500M wins by just 0.4% (2,669 vs 2,658), indicating that compute performance is nearly identical between the two, despite the RX 6500M’s higher theoretical FP32.

The overall wins tally is 8 for the RX 6500M and 1 for the Pro 5300M. The RX 6500M’s victories are often by large percentages, while the Pro 5300M’s single win is substantial but narrow in scope. The data shows a consistent pattern: the RX 6500M excels in 3D and modern API benchmarks, while the Pro 5300M only leads in 2D.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The RX 6500M is built on a 6 nm process with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, while the Pro 5300M uses a 7 nm process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the RX 6500M at 50.5M per mm² versus 40.5M per mm².

Clock speeds are drastically different: the RX 6500M has a base clock of 2,000 MHz and a boost of 2,400 MHz, while the Pro 5300M has a base of 1,000 MHz and a boost of 1,250 MHz. The RX 6500M’s memory runs at 18 Gbps effective, compared to 12 Gbps on the Pro 5300M. Memory size is identical at 4 GB GDDR6, but the bus width differs: 64-bit for the RX 6500M and 128-bit for the Pro 5300M, leading to bandwidths of 144.0 GB/s and 192.0 GB/s, respectively.

The RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, whereas the Pro 5300M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer units, the RX 6500M has higher pixel and texture rates: 76.80 GPixel/s and 153.6 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.915 TFLOPS for the RX 6500M and 3.200 TFLOPS for the Pro 5300M.

The RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the Pro 5300M lacks. This enables DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the RX 6500M, while the Pro 5300M is capped at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6500M and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Pro 5300M. TDP is 50 W for the RX 6500M and 85 W for the Pro 5300M, with neither requiring power connectors. The RX 6500M is listed as IGP slot width, while the Pro 5300M has no slot width specified.