AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 and AMD Radeon RX 5300M represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics from the same manufacturer, separated by over two years of architectural evolution. The data shows the RX 5300M takes the single available head-to-head benchmark victory, but the Pro 575 counters with a higher overall average benchmark score, making this a nuanced comparison rather than a straightforward generational win.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529 against the AMD Radeon Pro 575's 34,596. That is a delta of -5.3% for the Pro 575, meaning the RX 5300M is roughly 5.6% faster in this specific compute workload. The RX 5300M wins this test outright, and it is the only head-to-head result recorded, giving it a 1-0 win tally.

However, the broader benchmark picture shifts when looking at average scores across all tests. The Pro 575 holds an average benchmark score of 39,555 across three different API tests (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the RX 5300M's average is 36,529 from its single OpenCL result. That 8.3% gap in favor of the Pro 575 is driven by its strong showing in Geekbench Metal (46,192) and Geekbench Vulkan (37,878), two tests the RX 5300M has no recorded data for. In practical terms, the RX 5300M's single win is real but narrow, while the Pro 575 demonstrates broader API compatibility and higher peak performance in the tests it does appear in.

Looking at the rivals list, the Pro 575's nearest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, which scores 39,568 — essentially identical with a 0% delta. The Pro 575 also sits ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116, +1.1%) and behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, -1.3%) and AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318, -1.9%). The RX 5300M, meanwhile, matches the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X almost exactly (36,530, 0% delta) and edges out the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289, +0.7%). These rival positions show the Pro 575 competing in a higher performance tier overall, despite losing the one direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575, with an average benchmark score of 39,555 compared to the RX 5300M's 36,529. This places the Pro 575 in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the 80th percentile for the RX 5300M.

Q: Is the RX 5300M faster in any test?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL the RX 5300M scores 36,529 versus the Pro 575's 34,596, a 5.3% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test where both GPUs have recorded scores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, with 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 575 has 29% more bandwidth and 1 GB more capacity.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The Pro 575 is built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, while the RX 5300M uses TSMC's 7 nm node. The RX 5300M features a smaller die (158 mm² versus 232 mm²) but packs more transistors (6,400 million versus 5,700 million), resulting in a density of 40.5M transistors per mm² versus 24.6M for the Pro 575.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan 1.4?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 5300M supports Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 575 is limited to Vulkan 1.3, though both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The RX 5300M has a TDP of 85 W, while the Pro 575 is rated at 150 W. The RX 5300M draws nearly 43% less power, which is significant for mobile implementations.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations. The Pro 575 uses GCN 4.0, built on the Ellesmere chip, while the RX 5300M uses RDNA 1.0, based on the Navi 14 chip. This is a fundamental shift in how AMD designs graphics cores, with RDNA 1.0 focusing on higher instructions-per-clock and improved efficiency over the older GCN design.

The process node difference is stark: the Pro 575 is fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, while the RX 5300M uses TSMC's 7 nm node. That 7 nm process allows the RX 5300M to pack 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5M transistors per mm². The Pro 575, by contrast, has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6M per mm². The smaller, denser die on the RX 5300M is a direct result of the newer manufacturing process.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 5300M has fewer shading units (1,408) and TMUs (88), but retains the same 32 ROPs. Despite fewer cores, the RX 5300M achieves a higher pixel rate of 46.24 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s for the Pro 575, thanks to its higher boost clock of 1445 MHz. The texture rate favors the Pro 575 at 140.3 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s, and the Pro 575 also leads in FP32 throughput at 4.489 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS. However, the RX 5300M crushes the Pro 575 in FP16, delivering 8.138 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, versus the Pro 575's 4.489 TFLOPS at 1:1.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 217.0 GB/s. The RX 5300M uses 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, for 168.0 GB/s. The Pro 575's wider bus gives it 29% more bandwidth, though the RX 5300M's faster 14 Gbps effective memory speed partially compensates. The bus interface also differs: the Pro 575 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which offers double the per-lane bandwidth of the older standard.

The Verdict

The data supports different picks depending on the workload. If the priority is raw compute performance in a single OpenCL test, the RX 5300M wins, but only by 5.3%. If the priority is overall versatility and maximum peak performance across multiple APIs, the Pro 575 is the stronger option, with a 39,555 average score that places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs — two percentage points higher than the RX 5300M's 80th percentile.

The Pro 575's higher TDP of 150 W versus 85 W suggests it is designed for larger, more power-tolerant mobile workstations, while the RX 5300M's lower power draw makes it suitable for thinner laptops. The Pro 575's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth is superior for memory-heavy tasks like large textures or high-resolution compute, while the RX 5300M's 3 GB of GDDR6 is more compact but limited by its 96-bit bus.

Neither GPU supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both list null for those specifications. Both are end-of-life products. For users prioritizing compute density and efficiency, the RX 5300M is the data-backed choice. For users prioritizing peak throughput and memory bandwidth, the Pro 575 is the pick.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The Pro 575 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the RX 5300M uses TSMC's 7 nm node. Transistor counts are 5,700 million for the Pro 575 versus 6,400 million for the RX 5300M, with die sizes of 232 mm² and 158 mm² respectively.

Memory differs in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth: the Pro 575 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 217.0 GB/s, while the RX 5300M has 3 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 168.0 GB/s. The Pro 575 has more shading units (2,048 versus 1,408), more TMUs (128 versus 88), but equal ROPs (32 each). Clock speeds are only specified for the RX 5300M, with a 1000 MHz base, 1445 MHz boost, and 1181 MHz game clock; the Pro 575 lists no base or boost clocks.

Performance metrics favor the Pro 575 in FP32 (4.489 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS) and texture rate (140.3 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s), but the RX 5300M wins in pixel rate (46.24 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s) and FP16 (8.138 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS). TDP is 150 W for the Pro 575 and 85 W for the RX 5300M. The Pro 575 uses an MXM Module slot, while the RX 5300M has no slot width specified. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro 575, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 5300M. API support shows the RX 5300M ahead with Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, and DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0, though both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are 2017-06-04 for the Pro 575 and 2019-11-12 for the RX 5300M.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5300M wins in the only direct benchmark comparison: Geekbench OpenCL, with a 36,529 score versus 34,596. It also wins on efficiency, with an 85 W TDP versus 150 W, and on modern features like PCIe 4.0, Vulkan 1.4, and DirectX 12_1 support. Its 7 nm process and higher transistor density (40.5M per mm² versus 24.6M) give it a clear architectural advantage for power-constrained mobile designs. The RX 5300M also delivers double the FP16 throughput, making it better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision math.

The Pro 575 wins on raw performance metrics and memory. Its average benchmark score of 39,555 is 8.3% higher than the RX 5300M's 36,529, and its 82nd percentile ranking bests the 80th percentile of its rival. It offers 4 GB of memory versus 3 GB, with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 168.0 GB/s — a 29% advantage that matters for texture-heavy workloads or large data sets. The Pro 575 also has higher FP32 throughput (4.489 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (140.3 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s), making it stronger for traditional 3D rendering and compute tasks that rely on single-precision math.

In terms of rival positioning, the Pro 575 sits in a competitive cluster with the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (-1.3%), while the RX 5300M matches the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (0% delta) and edges the NVIDIA T1000 (+0.7%). This confirms the Pro 575 operates in a higher performance tier, despite losing the single head-to-head OpenCL test to its newer, more efficient sibling.