AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 are separated by six years of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Radeon Pro 5300M wins all three shared head-to-head tests, with the largest margin in Metal, where it scores 33,626 against 4,524 for the GTX 760—a 643.3% advantage. This is not a close contest; the data indicates the newer AMD part is in a different performance class, despite both cards targeting similar mainstream segments in their respective eras.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result is in Geekbench Metal, where the Radeon Pro 5300M posts 33,626 points versus 4,524 points for the GTX 760. That 643.3% delta is the single biggest win in the comparison and reflects both the architectural leap from Kepler to RDNA 1.0 and the AMD card’s focus on compute-oriented APIs used in creative workloads. The GTX 760, released in 2013, simply lacks the modern hardware features needed to compete in this test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252, which is 158.9% higher than the GTX 760’s 11,299. This is a more balanced result than Metal but still a commanding win for AMD. The 2.378 TFLOPS FP32 throughput of the GTX 760 is dwarfed by the Radeon’s 3.200 TFLOPS, and the AMD card’s 6.400 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) capability gives it additional headroom for mixed-precision workloads that the NVIDIA card cannot access, as it lists no FP16 support.

Vulkan results follow the same pattern: the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 27,912 against 12,551 for the GTX 760, a 122.4% advantage. This is the smallest relative win for AMD, but still more than double the NVIDIA card’s output. The Radeon supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175, which likely contributes to the gap in addition to raw compute differences.

The overall average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10,013 across all its tests, while the GTX 760 averages 9,458. The Radeon sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, with the GTX 760 just below at the 46th percentile. In the nearest-rival comparisons, the Radeon Pro 5300M is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043 average) and 0.5% ahead of the GTX 870M (9,959), while the GTX 760 sits 0.2% behind the GTX TITAN BLACK (9,474) and 1.6% ahead of the Radeon R7 M380 (9,313). These placements show both cards are mid-pack performers, but the newer AMD part has a measurable edge in raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10,013 across its benchmark suite, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 averages 9,458. That is a 555-point gap in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the GTX 760 win any benchmark against the Radeon Pro 5300M?

A: No. In the three head-to-head tests—Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan—the Radeon Pro 5300M wins all of them. The GTX 760 records zero wins in this comparison.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: They are nearly identical in bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300M has 192.0 GB/s, and the GTX 760 has 192.3 GB/s. The difference is negligible, despite the AMD card using GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus and the NVIDIA card using GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M packs 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter on a 7 nm process, while the GTX 760 has 12.0 million per square millimeter on a 28 nm process. This reflects the massive manufacturing improvements between 2013 and 2019.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M delivers 3.200 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 2.378 TFLOPS for the GTX 760. This is a 34.6% advantage for AMD in raw single-precision throughput.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 5300M and the GTX 760 both have a production status of "End-of-life." The AMD card was released in November 2019, while the GTX 760 launched in June 2013.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 in every shared benchmark. For anyone choosing between these two as a used or legacy purchase, the Radeon offers substantially higher compute performance, modern API support, and better memory technology. The GTX 760’s only advantages are its wider 256-bit memory bus and its slightly higher memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s, but those do not translate into benchmark wins.

A builder targeting Metal-based macOS applications should pick the Radeon Pro 5300M without hesitation—its 33,626 Metal score is over seven times higher than the GTX 760’s 4,524. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the AMD card is again the stronger choice, with 158.9% and 122.4% leads respectively. The GTX 760 remains a functional card for older DirectX 11 titles, as indicated by its PassMark DirectX 11 score, but the Radeon’s modern architecture makes it the only sensible pick in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The Radeon Pro 5300M and GTX 760 differ in nearly every major specification. The AMD card uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the GTX 760 uses a 28 nm process from the same foundry. Transistor counts reflect this: the Radeon has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the GTX 760 has 3,540 million on a much larger 294 mm² die. The Radeon’s transistor density of 40.5M per mm² is more than three times the GTX 760’s 12.0M per mm².

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Both achieve nearly identical bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s and 192.3 GB/s, respectively. The Radeon’s memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the GTX 760 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

Compute resources are also different. The Radeon has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card’s pixel rate is 40.00 GPixel/s versus 24.77 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rates are nearly identical at 100.0 GTexel/s for AMD and 99.07 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The Radeon’s FP32 output is 3.200 TFLOPS, and it has 6.400 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1); the GTX 760 has 2.378 TFLOPS FP32 and no FP16 listing.

Power and physical specs differ sharply. The Radeon Pro 5300M has a TDP of 85 W with no power connectors required, while the GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP and requires two 6-pin connectors. The GTX 760 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and has display outputs of 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The GTX 760 lists a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent entirely different GPU generations. The Radeon Pro 5300M is built on RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 14 chip, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation. The GTX 760 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, part of the GeForce 700 series. Kepler is a 2012-era design, while RDNA 1.0 debuted in 2019, explaining the massive efficiency and feature gap.

The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon’s 7 nm process enables 85 W TDP, whereas the GTX 760’s 28 nm process requires 170 W. The Radeon’s 6,400 million transistors on a smaller die demonstrate the density advantages of modern lithography.

The GTX 760 has a predecessor in the GeForce 600 series and a successor in the GeForce 900 series, while the Radeon Pro 5300M has no listed predecessor or successor. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Radeon’s FP16 support (6.400 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio) is a notable architectural feature absent from the GTX 760, which likely contributes to its strong OpenCL and Metal compute results.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5300M wins in every measurable benchmark category shared between the two cards. In Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, it holds decisive leads of 643.3%, 158.9%, and 122.4%, respectively. Its higher FP32 throughput, FP16 capability, and modern API support make it the clear choice for compute-heavy applications, creative workloads, and any task leveraging Vulkan or Metal. The card’s lower 85 W TDP and lack of power connectors also make it suitable for portable or low-power systems.

The GTX 760’s wins are more limited and contextual. It matches the Radeon in memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs. 192.0 GB/s) and has a wider 256-bit bus, which could theoretically benefit certain bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but no benchmark in the data confirms this advantage. Its 96 TMUs slightly exceed the Radeon’s 80, but texture rates are nearly identical. The GTX 760 also has a higher boost clock in some scenarios (1032 MHz vs. 1250 MHz for the Radeon, though the Radeon’s base is higher at 1000 MHz vs. 980 MHz).

For legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 workloads, the GTX 760 shows relative strength—its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 80 and DirectX 10 score of 36 are not directly compared to the Radeon in the head-to-head data, but they indicate functional support for older APIs. The Radeon, however, has its own PassMark scores for those same tests (80 for DirectX 9 and 36 for DirectX 10), suggesting parity. The GTX 760’s only clear practical advantage is its desktop-oriented design: it is a dual-slot card with standard display outputs, while the Radeon’s outputs are listed as portable-device dependent. For a fixed desktop build with existing DVI monitors, the GTX 760 might be easier to integrate, but the Radeon’s performance lead makes it the superior choice in nearly all scenarios.