AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 are both end-of-life professional mobile and desktop workstation GPUs, respectively, but the benchmark data positions them in completely different tiers. The Quadro P4000 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the provided dataset, with a 9-0 sweep over the Radeon Pro 5300M. While the Radeon Pro 5300M posts a slightly higher average benchmark score (10013 vs 9665) and a marginally better overall percentile rank (48th vs 47th percentile), this is misleading; the P4000’s wins are decisive in raw compute and graphics workloads, often by margins exceeding 45%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior performer in every measured category. It wins all nine head-to-head benchmarks, with the largest margin being a 57% lead in Passmark DirectX 11 and the smallest being a 19.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. For any workload that relies on raw graphics throughput, legacy API support, or general compute, the P4000 is the clear choice. The Radeon Pro 5300M’s only statistical advantages are its higher average benchmark score (10013 vs 9665, a 3.6% edge) and its percentile rank (48 vs 47), but these aggregate metrics are dragged down by the P4000’s inclusion of a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score (1115) in its benchmark list, which the 5300M lacks. If you need maximum performance in DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12, Vulkan, or OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 is the definitive pick. The Radeon Pro 5300M’s only potential appeal is its lower power draw (85W vs 105W) and smaller die size (158 mm² vs 314 mm²), but the performance gap makes it a non-competitive alternative for demanding tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and fabrication nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture using a 7nm TSMC process, packing 6,400 million transistors into a compact 158 mm² die. This yields a high transistor density of 40.5 million transistors per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the older Pascal architecture on a 16nm TSMC process, with 7,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 314 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 22.9 million transistors per mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The P4000 counters with 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — meaning it has roughly 40% more shading units and double the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA card: the P4000 runs at a 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, while the 5300M is slower at 1000 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost. Memory architecture is another split: the 5300M uses 4GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the P4000 uses 8GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The P4000’s wider bus and higher bandwidth give it a clear memory throughput advantage. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the P4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the 5300M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent" — a key difference for desktop workstation setups.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 dominates every single benchmark comparison, but the margins vary significantly by workload type. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36212 versus the 5300M’s 29252, a 19.2% lead. This advantage expands dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P4000 hits 41786 compared to 27912, a 33.2% gap. The most extreme differences appear in legacy DirectX tests: the P4000 leads by 45.5% in Passmark DirectX 10 (66 vs 36), by a massive 57% in DirectX 11 (86 vs 37), and by 37.5% in DirectX 12 (40 vs 25). The DirectX 9 test shows a 55.8% margin (181 vs 80).

The performance gap extends beyond gaming APIs into general compute and 2D workloads. In Passmark GPU Compute, the P4000 scores 4913 versus 2658, a 45.9% advantage. Even in Passmark G2D (2D graphics), the P4000 wins comfortably at 786 versus 582, a 26% lead. The most important aggregate metric is Passmark G3D, where the P4000 nearly doubles the 5300M’s score: 11466 versus 5918, a 48.4% difference. Notably, the 5300M has no 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark score in the dataset, while the P4000 records 1115 in that test. With zero wins for the AMD card across all nine comparisons, the performance hierarchy is unequivocal.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has a higher average benchmark score of 10013, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P4000’s 9665. However, this does not reflect head-to-head performance, where the P4000 wins every benchmark.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 in DirectX 11?

A: The P4000 leads by 57% in Passmark DirectX 11, scoring 86 versus the 5300M’s 37. This is the largest margin of any benchmark in the comparison.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has 8GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has 4GB of GDDR6 memory. The P4000 also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the 5300M’s 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the Radeon Pro 5300M wins zero benchmarks, while the Quadro P4000 wins all nine.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has a lower TDP of 85W, while the Quadro P4000 has a TDP of 105W. The P4000 also requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300W PSU.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is significantly faster in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 41786 versus 27912 for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, a 33.2% advantage.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins in every scenario where raw performance is required. This includes all legacy DirectX workloads (9, 10, 11, and 12), where its margins range from 37.5% to 57%. It is also the superior choice for general compute tasks, as shown by its 45.9% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 19.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. For Vulkan-based applications, the P4000’s 33.2% advantage is decisive. The P4000 also excels in 2D desktop work (G2D score 786 vs 582) and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it ideal for multi-monitor workstation setups. Its 8GB memory capacity and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth further support large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has no benchmark wins, but its advantages are architectural and practical. It consumes less power (85W vs 105W), requires no power connectors (the P4000 needs a 1x 6-pin), and is built on a more advanced 7nm node with a smaller die (158 mm² vs 314 mm²). The 5300M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, whereas the P4000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. For portable or power-constrained devices, the 5300M’s lower TDP and lack of external power connectors could be beneficial, but this comes at a massive performance cost. The 5300M’s 4GB GDDR6 memory offers faster memory clock (12 Gbps effective vs 7.6 Gbps), but the P4000’s larger capacity and bandwidth (243.3 GB/s vs 192.0 GB/s) outweigh that advantage in practice.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are stark. The process node differs significantly: the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses 7nm TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses 16nm TSMC. Transistor counts are 6,400 million for AMD versus 7,200 million for NVIDIA, with die sizes of 158 mm² and 314 mm², respectively. Clock speeds favor the P4000: base 1202 MHz vs 1000 MHz, boost 1480 MHz vs 1250 MHz. Memory configurations are completely different: the 5300M has 4GB GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus (192.0 GB/s), while the P4000 has 8GB GDDR5 at 7.6 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus (243.3 GB/s).

Core counts show the P4000’s advantage: 1792 shading units vs 1280, 112 TMUs vs 80, and 64 ROPs vs 32. This results in the P4000 achieving 94.72 GPixel/s pixel rate and 165.8 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s for the 5300M. FP32 performance is 5.304 TFLOPS for the P4000 versus 3.200 TFLOPS for the 5300M. FP16 is a notable divergence: the AMD card achieves 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card is severely limited at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). Power and physical specs also differ: the 5300M has an 85W TDP with no power connectors, while the P4000 has a 105W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin connector, and a suggested 300W PSU. The P4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241mm x 111mm, while the 5300M has no listed dimensions. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The P4000’s launch MSRP is 815 USD, while the 5300M has no listed MSRP. The P4000 has a predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta), while the 5300M has neither listed.