AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by roughly four and a half years of silicon progress. The data shows that the Radeon Pro 5300M, built on a 7 nm process with RDNA 1.0 architecture, delivers a decisive performance advantage over the older Maxwell-based GTX 960M, which uses a 28 nm process. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD part wins both, with margins that range from 164.8% to 238.5%. The GTX 960M, however, retains its own position in the lower-midrange segment, with a percentile rank of 46 versus the Radeon’s 48, indicating that while the AMD card is faster, both sit in a similar overall performance tier relative to all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M in OpenCL?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 960M scores 11,045. This gives the AMD part a 164.8% advantage in that workload.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance, and by what margin?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 27,912, compared to 8,245 for the GTX 960M, representing a 238.5% lead for the AMD card.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Both feature 4 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the type and bandwidth differ. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 960M uses GDDR5 with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between these two chips?

A: The AMD Navi 14 chip contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, whereas the NVIDIA GM107 chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has a pixel rate of 40.00 GPixel/s, more than double the 18.82 GPixel/s of the GTX 960M.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Radeon Pro 5300M was released on 2019-11-12, while the GTX 960M was released on 2015-03-12.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, using the Navi 14 chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is based on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. The process node difference is stark: AMD uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, whereas NVIDIA’s chip is on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This translates directly into transistor density—the AMD die packs 40.5M transistors per mm², compared to just 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The Radeon Pro 5300M’s chip contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the GTX 960M’s GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Despite a similar physical footprint, the AMD chip has over three times the transistor count, enabling a much larger execution engine. The AMD GPU features 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. In contrast, the GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—exactly half the shading units and TMUs, and half the ROPs.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 960M runs at a higher base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost of 1176 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 5300M’s base is 1000 MHz with a 1250 MHz boost. Yet the AMD card’s superior width and efficiency more than compensate. The Radeon’s FP32 throughput is 3.200 TFLOPS, compared to 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960M. The AMD GPU also supports FP16 at 6.400 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, a feature entirely absent from the Maxwell chip.

Memory subsystems are similarly divergent. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The GTX 960M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), delivering just 80.19 GB/s on the same bus width. This 2.4x bandwidth advantage is critical for modern workloads. The power envelope is close—85 W for AMD versus 75 W for NVIDIA—but the AMD card delivers dramatically more compute per watt. The Radeon Pro 5300M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 960M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Both GPUs list "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and directx 12 support, though the AMD part adheres to 12_1 while NVIDIA’s is 12 (11_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M across the two benchmarks where both GPUs have results. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, illustrates the compute gap clearly. The Radeon Pro 5300M posts a score of 29,252, while the GTX 960M manages only 11,045. That is a 164.8% delta in favor of the AMD card. This test reflects general-purpose GPU compute, where the Radeon’s higher shader count, doubled FP32 throughput, and vastly superior memory bandwidth all contribute. The GTX 960M’s Maxwell architecture was competitive in its day, but its 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply outclassed by the 3.200 TFLOPS of the RDNA part.

The second shared benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, shows an even larger margin. The Radeon Pro 5300M scores 27,912, against 8,245 for the GTX 960M, a delta of 238.5%. Vulkan’s low-level API tends to expose raw architectural throughput, and the results are telling. The AMD card’s modern RDNA design, with its higher clock boost of 1250 MHz and larger resource pool, handles the API’s draw calls and compute workloads far more efficiently. The GTX 960M’s older Maxwell design, with 640 shaders and a 1176 MHz boost, falls behind dramatically. The data shows that in Vulkan, the AMD GPU delivers more than 3.4 times the score of the NVIDIA part.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the average benchmark scores place the Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013, with the GTX 960M at 9,645. This is a closer aggregate margin, reflecting that the GTX 960M performs relatively better in some legacy tests not shared here. The AMD card’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (avg 10,043, delta -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (avg 10,070, delta -0.6%), while the GTX 960M sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (avg 9,637, delta 0.1%) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (avg 9,653, delta -0.1%). The percentile ranks confirm the gap: the Radeon Pro 5300M is in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960M is in the 46th.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for users who prioritize raw performance. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior GPU in every head-to-head comparison available, with a 164.8% lead in OpenCL and a 238.5% lead in Vulkan. Its architecture advantages—7 nm process, RDNA 1.0, 1280 shaders, and 192.0 GB/s of GDDR6 bandwidth—translate into a GPU that is more than twice as fast in compute-heavy workloads. The GTX 960M, with its Maxwell architecture, 640 shaders, and 80.19 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, cannot compete on raw numbers.

However, the GTX 960M is not without context. Its 75 W TDP is slightly lower than the AMD’s 85 W, and it uses a standard MXM module form factor, which may matter for specific laptop upgrade paths. Its average benchmark score of 9,645 is only 3.7% behind the Radeon’s 10,013, suggesting that in synthetic aggregate metrics, the gap narrows somewhat. But the shared benchmark data tells a different story—one of decisive AMD dominance. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the clear pick. For those constrained by power budgets or needing a specific MXM form factor, the GTX 960M remains a functional, if dated, option. The wins tally of 2 to 0 in favor of the AMD card reflects the actual competitive reality.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M:

• Process Node: AMD uses 7 nm; NVIDIA uses 28 nm.
• Transistors: AMD has 6,400 million; NVIDIA has 1,870 million.
• Die Size: AMD is 158 mm²; NVIDIA is 148 mm².
• Transistor Density: AMD is 40.5M / mm²; NVIDIA is 12.6M / mm².
• Base Clock: AMD is 1000 MHz; NVIDIA is 1097 MHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD is 1250 MHz; NVIDIA is 1176 MHz.
• Memory Clock: AMD is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective); NVIDIA is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Type: AMD uses GDDR6; NVIDIA uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD is 192.0 GB/s; NVIDIA is 80.19 GB/s.
• Shading Units: AMD has 1280; NVIDIA has 640.
• Texture Mapping Units: AMD has 80; NVIDIA has 40.
• ROPs: AMD has 32; NVIDIA has 16.
• Pixel Rate: AMD is 40.00 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 18.82 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: AMD is 100.0 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 47.04 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: AMD is 3.200 TFLOPS; NVIDIA is 1.505 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: AMD is 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1); NVIDIA has no FP16 data.
• TDP: AMD is 85 W; NVIDIA is 75 W.
• Slot Width: AMD has no data; NVIDIA is MXM Module.
• Bus Interface: AMD is PCIe 4.0 x8; NVIDIA is MXM-B (3.0).
• DirectX Support: AMD is 12 (12_1); NVIDIA is 12 (11_0).
• Release Date: AMD is 2019-11-12; NVIDIA is 2015-03-12.
• Predecessor: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA is GeForce 800M.
• Successor: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA is GeForce 10 Mobile.
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: AMD is 29,252; NVIDIA is 11,045.
• Geekbench Vulkan Score: AMD is 27,912; NVIDIA is 8,245.
• Average Benchmark Score: AMD is 10,013; NVIDIA is 9,645.
• Percentile vs All GPUs: AMD is 48; NVIDIA is 46.