AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X and the AMD Radeon RX 5300M are two mobile GPUs from different eras, and the benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, victor. The RX 5300M leads in the only directly comparable test, but the Pro 575X holds its own in the broader performance percentile rankings. The data indicates that the RX 5300M is the faster part in raw compute, while the Pro 575X benefits from a more mature driver ecosystem and higher overall standing among all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X scores 34,773 points. This gives the RX 5300M a 4.8% lead over the Pro 575X, a decisive margin in a synthetic workload. This single result is the most important data point for direct performance comparison, as it places the newer RDNA architecture ahead of the older GCN design in a compute-heavy scenario.

However, the broader benchmark picture complicates the narrative. The Pro 575X has a higher average benchmark score of 39,116, compared to the RX 5300M's 36,529. This is because the Pro 575X was tested in three different Geekbench workloads—Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan—while the RX 5300M only has an OpenCL result. The Pro 575X's Metal score of 44,655 and Vulkan score of 37,919 are both higher than the RX 5300M's OpenCL score. This suggests that the Pro 575X excels in APIs optimized for its GCN architecture, particularly Apple's Metal, which is a significant factor given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation.

When comparing to their respective nearest rivals, the performance positioning becomes even more nuanced. The Pro 575X's average score of 39,116 puts it 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 580X and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, but 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile. This indicates the Pro 575X is tightly clustered with its direct competitors, with no single dominant leader. Conversely, the RX 5300M's average score of 36,529 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, showing a 0% delta, and sits 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000. It trails the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 by 1.7% but leads the AMD Radeon Pro Duo by 1.9%. The RX 5300M's position is more volatile, showing both a larger win and a larger loss against its rivals.

The performance percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Pro 575X sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5300M sits in the 80th. This 2-point difference suggests that while the RX 5300M wins the direct head-to-head, the Pro 575X is considered a slightly more capable part overall when placed against the entire GPU landscape. This could be attributed to its higher memory bandwidth and wider bus, which may give it an edge in certain workloads not captured by the single OpenCL test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M is faster, scoring 36,529 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 575X's 34,773, a 4.8% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 575X have a higher average benchmark score than the RX 5300M?

A: Yes. The Pro 575X has an average benchmark score of 39,116, while the RX 5300M has an average score of 36,529.

Q: How does the Pro 575X compare to the AMD Radeon Pro 580X?

A: The Pro 575X has an average score of 39,116, which is 1.1% higher than the Pro 580X's average score of 38,706.

Q: What is the performance difference between the RX 5300M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X?

A: The RX 5300M's average score of 36,529 is exactly 0% different from the GTX TITAN X's average score of 36,530.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X ranks in the 82nd percentile, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M ranks in the 80th percentile.

Q: Does the RX 5300M lead the Pro 575X in any other benchmark besides OpenCL?

A: The data only includes one direct comparison test (Geekbench OpenCL), which the RX 5300M wins. No other head-to-head test results are available.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon RX 5300M as the better choice for pure compute performance. Its decisive 4.8% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is a clear indicator of its architectural advantage in this specific workload. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the RX 5300M is the superior option.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro 575X presents a compelling case for a different kind of user. Its higher average benchmark score and superior 82nd percentile ranking suggest it is a more well-rounded performer. The fact that it scores significantly higher in Metal and Vulkan tests, even though those are not directly compared to the RX 5300M, indicates it may offer better performance in a variety of APIs and gaming scenarios. The Pro 575X is the safer bet for a general-purpose mobile workstation GPU.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the priority. If a user's primary workload is OpenCL compute, the RX 5300M wins. If the user needs broader API support and a higher overall performance percentile, the Pro 575X is the more balanced pick. The RX 5300M wins the direct battle, but the Pro 575X wins the broader war. The verdict is not a landslide for either; it is a split decision based on workload specifics.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their core specifications. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M uses a 7 nm process node, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X uses a 14 nm node. The RX 5300M has a boost clock of 1445 MHz, a game clock of 1181 MHz, and a base clock of 1000 MHz; the Pro 575X has no listed base or boost clocks. The RX 5300M has 4.069 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Pro 575X has 4.489 TFLOPS. The RX 5300M has 8.138 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, while the Pro 575X has 4.489 TFLOPS. The RX 5300M has a lower TDP of 85 W, while the Pro 575X has a TDP of 150 W. The RX 5300M has a pixel rate of 46.24 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 127.2 GTexel/s, compared to the Pro 575X's 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s. The RX 5300M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Pro 575X uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M uses the newer RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip. The RX 5300M's RDNA architecture is fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process, whereas the Pro 575X is fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The RX 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the Pro 575X has 5,700 million transistors on a larger 232 mm² die. This gives the RX 5300M a substantially higher transistor density of 40.5M / mm² compared to 24.6M / mm². The RX 5300M has fewer shading units (1408 vs 2048) and TMUs (88 vs 128), but the same number of ROPs (32). The RX 5300M features 3 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, while the Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 5300M has a higher effective memory speed of 14 Gbps, but the Pro 575X has higher total bandwidth at 217.0 GB/s. The RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 5300M also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the Pro 575X is 1:1.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M wins in scenarios that favor raw compute throughput and modern efficiency. Its victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test makes it the clear choice for OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, and other compute-heavy tasks. Its higher FP16 performance (8.138 TFLOPS) suggests a significant advantage in workloads that can utilize half-precision, such as certain machine learning inference or image processing tasks. The lower 85 W TDP also makes it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light laptops, potentially leading to better battery life and less thermal throttling in a mobile chassis.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins in scenarios that rely on memory bandwidth and legacy API support. Its 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth, thanks to the 256-bit bus, is 22.6% higher than the RX 5300M's 168.0 GB/s. This gives it an edge in high-resolution texture streaming and large dataset manipulation. Its higher FP32 performance (4.489 TFLOPS) also makes it a stronger candidate for traditional shader-based rendering. The Pro 575X's support for Metal, evidenced by its strong 44,655 score, makes it the better choice for macOS environments or applications that leverage this API. Its higher 82nd percentile ranking also suggests it is a more reliable performer across a wider range of tasks, making it the safer bet for a general-purpose mobile workstation.