AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960: the data shows a decisive generational gap, with the AMD mobile part winning every shared benchmark by a wide margin. The Radeon Pro 5300M leads in average benchmark score (10013 vs 9273, a 7.4% overall advantage), but the head-to-head results reveal a far larger performance chasm in individual tests, particularly in graphics APIs where the newer architecture dominates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three direct comparisons are lopsided. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 33626 against the GTX 960’s 8773, a 283.3% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is nearly four times the raw score. The Metal API is Apple’s graphics interface, and the Radeon Pro 5300M is built for Mac systems, so this result reflects both architectural efficiency and driver optimization for that environment.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a similar story. The AMD card posts 27912 versus 9231 for the GTX 960, a 202.4% delta. Vulkan is a cross-platform low-overhead API, and the RDNA 1.0 architecture handles it far more effectively than Maxwell 2.0. The GTX 960’s score is closer to its Metal result than to OpenCL, suggesting that its Vulkan implementation is comparatively weak.

The closest contest is Geekbench OpenCL. Here the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252, while the GTX 960 reaches 18925 — a 54.6% lead for AMD. This is still a substantial win, but it shows the older NVIDIA card is relatively more competitive in compute workloads that use OpenCL, likely because its 1024 shading units scale reasonably well under that API. Still, the Radeon Pro 5300M’s 1280 shading units and higher clock speeds (1250 MHz boost vs 1178 MHz) carry the day.

Across all three tests, the AMD card wins 3-0. There is no shared benchmark where the GTX 960 pulls ahead. The margin in Metal and Vulkan exceeds 200%, while OpenCL is a narrower but still clear victory. These deltas are consistent with the architectural gap: the Radeon Pro 5300M’s 7 nm process and RDNA 1.0 design deliver higher instruction throughput per clock, and the benchmark data confirms it.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins everywhere the two are compared. Its strengths are most pronounced in Metal and Vulkan, where it leads by over 200%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on those APIs, which includes most modern macOS applications and increasingly many cross-platform games and compute tasks. The 54.6% OpenCL advantage also positions it as the stronger option for general-purpose GPU compute, such as video encoding or physics simulations that use that API.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 has no benchmark win in this comparison. However, its own nearest-rival data shows it is competitive within its generation: it sits within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon R7 M380, with an average score of 9273. Its percentile rank of 45 vs the Radeon Pro 5300M’s 48 indicates it is not far behind in the broader GPU landscape, but against this specific AMD part it is outclassed.

Where the GTX 960 might still be relevant is in legacy DirectX workloads. The FACT PACK includes PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12 results for the AMD card (scores of 80, 36, 37, and 25 respectively), but no comparable DirectX scores for the GTX 960. Without direct data, the only fair statement is that the AMD card’s DirectX 12 (12_1) API support matches the GTX 960’s, so both handle modern Windows titles, but the AMD part’s raw performance advantage in other APIs suggests it would likely lead there too, though this is not directly measured.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, with a density of just 12.9M per mm².

This process difference is fundamental. The 7 nm node allows AMD to fit more than twice the transistors (6,400M vs 2,940M) into a smaller die (158 mm² vs 228 mm²). The RDNA 1.0 design also introduces significant IPC improvements over older GCN-based parts, though the GTX 960’s Maxwell 2.0 was itself a strong architectural step for NVIDIA in its day. The Radeon Pro 5300M’s transistor density of 40.5M / mm² is more than three times that of the GTX 960’s 12.9M / mm², which explains the massive performance gap in compute-heavy benchmarks.

The memory subsystems differ too. The AMD card uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, with 112.2 GB/s bandwidth. The GDDR6 memory clock runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960’s GDDR5 runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The higher effective data rate of GDDR6 gives the AMD card a 71% bandwidth advantage, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads.

The Radeon Pro 5300M also features 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 960 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card’s pixel rate is 40.00 GPixel/s vs 37.70 GPixel/s for the GTX 960, and its texture rate is 100.0 GTexel/s vs 75.39 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.200 TFLOPS for AMD vs 2.413 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 32.6% advantage. The AMD card also supports FP16 at 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 960 has no FP16 capability listed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 1250 MHz, while the GTX 960 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost. The AMD card’s lower base but higher boost suggests a more aggressive power management curve, which is typical for mobile parts.

Memory is a key differentiator: 4 GB GDDR6 vs 2 GB GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the AMD card’s 192.0 GB/s bandwidth is 71% higher than the GTX 960’s 112.2 GB/s. This makes the Radeon Pro 5300M far more capable at higher resolutions and with larger textures.

Power consumption flips the expected order. The AMD card has a TDP of 85 W, while the GTX 960 draws 120 W. The 7 nm process enables this efficiency gain — the AMD part delivers more performance at lower power. The GTX 960 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro 5300M uses no power connectors (it is portable-device dependent). The GTX 960 is dual-slot and 241 mm (9.5 inches) long; the AMD card has no listed dimensions.

The bus interface also differs: the Radeon Pro 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Despite the narrower lane count, PCIe 4.0’s higher bandwidth makes this a non-issue in most scenarios. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the AMD card, whereas the GTX 960 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2.

Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 960 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The AMD card has no launch MSRP listed. The GTX 960’s predecessor is GeForce 700 and successor is GeForce 10; the Radeon Pro 5300M has no listed predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Metal benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 33626 in Geekbench Metal, which is 283.3% higher than the GTX 960’s 8773. This is the single largest performance gap between the two.

Q: Does the GTX 960 win any benchmark?

A: No. Across the three shared tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins all of them. The closest result is OpenCL, where the AMD card leads by 54.6%.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD card has 4 GB of GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 112.2 GB/s. The AMD card’s bandwidth advantage is 71%, which is significant for high-resolution textures.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has a TDP of 85 W, while the GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W. The AMD card delivers higher performance at 35 W lower power, thanks to its 7 nm process.

Q: Are their API supports different?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card also supports FP16 compute at 6.400 TFLOPS, while the GTX 960 has no FP16 capability listed.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has an average benchmark score of 10013, compared to 9273 for the GTX 960. The AMD card also ranks in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 45th percentile for the GTX 960.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: choose the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 for any workload where performance matters. It wins all three shared benchmarks by margins ranging from 54.6% to 283.3%, has 71% more memory bandwidth, 32.6% more FP32 compute, and does so at 35 W lower power. Its 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is double the GTX 960’s 2 GB, which alone makes it the better choice for modern games and applications that exceed 2 GB of VRAM usage.

The GTX 960’s only advantages are its discrete form factor (dual-slot, 241 mm length) and its specific display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2), which may matter if you need those exact connections. It also has a known launch MSRP of 199 USD, but this is historical data and not a current purchase consideration.

For a desktop builder with access to a PCIe slot and a 300 W PSU, the GTX 960 is a functional legacy card, but it is severely outclassed. For a portable device or a system that can accommodate the Radeon Pro 5300M’s mobile design, the AMD part is the clear winner. Its higher percentile rank (48 vs 45) and higher average score (10013 vs 9273) confirm it is the better GPU overall. If you must choose based on benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the only sensible pick.