AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a stark generational mismatch. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M holds a decisive lead in every shared benchmark, winning 2 out of 2 head-to-head comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29,252 against the Tesla M10's 10,318, a 183.5% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even wider, with the Radeon hitting 27,912 versus 9,130, a 205.7% delta. These aren't marginal wins; they represent a doubling of compute throughput in both APIs.

The Tesla M10, despite its larger 8 GB frame buffer and higher 225 W TDP, cannot overcome the architectural deficit. Its average benchmark score of 9,724 places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon's 10,013 average sits at the 48th percentile. The Radeon's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores 10,043, a negligible 0.3% difference. The Tesla M10's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 at 9,716, a 0.1% delta. This suggests the M10 competes in a performance tier from roughly half a decade earlier.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the Radeon Pro 5300M is the clear choice for any workload involving OpenCL or Vulkan compute, as it delivers roughly triple the performance. The Tesla M10's only conceivable advantage lies in its 8 GB memory capacity, which may matter for specific large-batch inference tasks, but the raw throughput numbers indicate the Radeon will finish most jobs far sooner. For any new deployment measured by pure compute density, the Radeon wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, with a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter.

The RDNA design is far more efficient in transistor usage, but the Maxwell chip counters with a broader feature set for its era. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Tesla M10 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) — a meaningful difference for modern gaming or compute workloads that leverage feature level 12_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying implementations differ drastically.

Memory technology also diverges sharply. The Radeon uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, delivering 192.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The Tesla M10 uses GDDR5 at 5.2 Gbps effective, yielding only 83.20 GB/s on the same 128-bit bus. That's a 2.3x bandwidth advantage for the Radeon, which compounds with its higher compute rates. The Radeon's memory clock is 1500 MHz versus 1300 MHz on the M10, but the effective data rate difference is the key metric.

The Radeon Pro 5300M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Tesla M10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. For many workloads, the newer PCIe generation can offset the narrower lane count, though the M10's x16 width may still win for certain data-transfer-bound tasks. The Radeon has no power connectors (portable device dependent), while the M10 requires a single 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks were run on both cards, and the Radeon dominates both. Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252 against the Tesla M10's 10,318. That's a 183.5% delta, meaning the Radeon delivers nearly three times the OpenCL compute performance. This result aligns with the FP32 throughput figures: the Radeon offers 3.200 TFLOPS versus the M10's 1.672 TFLOPS, roughly a 1.9x raw compute advantage that the benchmark amplifies further.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The Radeon scores 27,912 versus the M10's 9,130, a 205.7% delta. Vulkan tends to favor modern architectures with better driver overhead and more efficient command processing. The RDNA 1.0 design clearly benefits from its newer generation, as the M10's Maxwell architecture lacks the same level of Vulkan optimization. The Radeon's FP16 capability of 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) may also contribute to Vulkan workloads that use half-precision paths, though the M10 has no listed FP16 support at all.

The Radeon's pixel rate of 40.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 100.0 GTexel/s dwarf the M10's 20.90 GPixel/s and 52.24 GTexel/s. These are exactly 2x and 1.9x advantages, respectively, mirroring the core count differences. The Radeon has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the M10's 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Every fundamental throughput metric points the same direction.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. Starting with the chip: Navi 14 (RDNA 1.0) versus GM107 (Maxwell). Process nodes are 7 nm versus 28 nm, a full two generations apart. Transistor counts are 6,400 million versus 1,870 million, and die sizes are 158 mm² versus 148 mm². The Radeon's density advantage is 40.5M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm².

Base clocks favor the Tesla M10 slightly: 1033 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Boost clocks also favor NVIDIA: 1306 MHz versus 1250 MHz. But the Radeon's memory clock is higher at 1500 MHz versus 1300 MHz, and the effective data rate is 12 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps. Memory bandwidth tells the story: 192.0 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s.

Memory capacity is the one clear win for the Tesla M10: 8 GB versus 4 GB. Both use 128-bit buses, but the Radeon's GDDR6 is fundamentally faster. The Tesla M10 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — exactly double in each category. FP32 performance is 3.200 TFLOPS versus 1.672 TFLOPS. The Radeon lists FP16 at 6.400 TFLOPS; the Tesla M10 has no FP16 specification.

TDP is a major differentiator: 85 W for the Radeon versus 225 W for the Tesla M10. The M10 is dual-slot with a 267 mm length and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector plus a 550 W suggested PSU. The Radeon has no power connectors and is portable-device dependent. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: the Radeon is portable-device dependent, while the Tesla M10 has no outputs at all. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_1), the M10 only 12 (11_0).

Release dates are November 2019 for the Radeon and May 2016 for the Tesla M10. Both are end-of-life. The Tesla M10 has a listed predecessor (Tesla Kepler) and successor (Tesla Pascal); the Radeon shows neither.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M delivers 3.200 TFLOPS, nearly double the Tesla M10's 1.672 TFLOPS. This aligns with the Radeon's 1280 shading units versus the M10's 640.

Q: Does the Tesla M10's larger 8 GB memory give it an advantage?

A: The M10 has 8 GB versus the Radeon's 4 GB, but its bandwidth is only 83.20 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads, the Radeon's higher bandwidth likely compensates for the smaller capacity in most scenarios.

Q: Why does the Radeon win the Vulkan benchmark by such a large margin?

A: The Radeon scores 27,912 versus 9,130, a 205.7% delta. This likely stems from the RDNA 1.0 architecture's modern Vulkan driver support and the Radeon's FP16 capability (6.400 TFLOPS), which the Maxwell-based M10 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density between the two chips?

A: The Radeon's Navi 14 achieves 40.5 million transistors per mm², while the Tesla M10's GM107 reaches only 12.6 million per mm². The 7 nm process enables this density advantage over the 28 nm node.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10,013 across all its benchmarks, while the Tesla M10 averages 9,724. The Radeon sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, the M10 at the 47th.

Q: Can the Tesla M10 output video signals?

A: No. The Tesla M10 has no display outputs, while the Radeon Pro 5300M's outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it relies on the host device's display connections.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins every benchmark where both cards were tested. In OpenCL, it's 183.5% faster; in Vulkan, 205.7% faster. Its architectural advantages are overwhelming: double the shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, and 2.3x the memory bandwidth. The Radeon also wins on efficiency, with an 85 W TDP versus the M10's 225 W, and it requires no external power connectors. For any workload that fits within 4 GB of VRAM — which includes most machine learning inference, rendering tasks, and compute workloads — the Radeon is the superior choice by every measurable metric.

The Tesla M10's only clear win is memory capacity at 8 GB. This could matter for workloads that need to hold larger models or datasets in VRAM without spilling to system memory. The M10 also has a higher base clock (1033 MHz versus 1000 MHz) and boost clock (1306 MHz versus 1250 MHz), though these do not translate into benchmark wins. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides more lanes than the Radeon's PCIe 4.0 x8, which could benefit data-transfer-heavy tasks if the platform doesn't support PCIe 4.0. The M10's dual-slot design and 267 mm length make it a standard server card, whereas the Radeon is portable-device dependent.

In practical terms, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the clear pick for anyone needing compute performance in a low-power, mobile-friendly package. The Tesla M10's 8 GB capacity is its only redeeming feature, but given that it delivers less than half the compute throughput at nearly three times the power draw, the data strongly favors the Radeon for virtually all use cases. The benchmark results are unambiguous: this is a generational mismatch, and time favors the newer architecture.