AMD Radeon Pro Duo vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M and AMD Radeon Pro Duo represent two distinct generations of GPU architecture and design philosophy, yet benchmark results place them in remarkably close competition. Based on the single available Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 5300M scores 36,529 points, narrowly edging out the Pro Duo’s 35,860 points by a 1.9% margin. This places both cards at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, indicating that despite their architectural differences, they deliver a similar level of raw compute performance in this specific workload. The RX 5300M’s success is notable given its far smaller die and lower power envelope, while the Pro Duo’s score reflects a design built for professional workloads rather than raw single-precision throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the AMD Radeon RX 5300M winning with a score of 36,529 against the AMD Radeon Pro Duo’s 35,860. This translates to a 1.9% advantage for the RX 5300M, a margin that is within typical run-to-run variance for such tests but nonetheless favors the newer architecture. The RX 5300M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, scores 36,530, a mere 0.0% delta, meaning the RX 5300M is essentially tied with that high-end desktop card from an earlier era. Meanwhile, the Pro Duo trails the same rival by 1.0%, with the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scoring 35,520 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile at 35,435, both slightly behind the Pro Duo.

In the broader context, the RX 5300M also outperforms the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, which scores 37,157, giving the PRO W6400 a 1.7% lead over the RX 5300M. This shows that the RX 5300M sits in a tight cluster of GPUs where performance differences are minimal, yet it manages to come out ahead of the Pro Duo. The Pro Duo’s own rival list includes the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289, which is 1.2% ahead of the Pro Duo, and the RX 5300M itself, which is 1.8% ahead from the Pro Duo’s perspective. These numbers suggest that in this specific OpenCL workload, the RX 5300M’s modern RDNA architecture compensates for its lower raw specs, while the Pro Duo’s older GCN design struggles to translate its massive compute resources into a decisive lead.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is clear: the RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Pro Duo uses the Capsaicin chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is stark—7 nm versus 28 nm—resulting in vastly different transistor densities. The RX 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a density of 40.5 million transistors per mm². The Pro Duo, however, houses 8,900 million transistors on a massive 596 mm² die, with a density of only 14.9 million per mm². This means the Pro Duo uses roughly 3.8 times the silicon area to achieve less than 1.4 times the transistor count, reflecting the older, less efficient manufacturing node.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The RX 5300M features 3 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Duo offers 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, producing a massive 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth—over three times that of the RX 5300M. Clock speeds also differ, with the RX 5300M running at a base of 1000 MHz, a boost of 1445 MHz, and a game clock of 1181 MHz, while the Pro Duo’s memory operates at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), though its core clocks are not specified in available data. The RX 5300M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro Duo uses the older PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Compute resources tell another story. The Pro Duo has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, producing peak rates of 8.192 TFLOPS FP32, 256.0 GTexel/s, and 64.00 GPixel/s. The RX 5300M, by contrast, has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 4.069 TFLOPS FP32, 127.2 GTexel/s, and 46.24 GPixel/s. Despite having roughly half the FP32 throughput, the RX 5300M still wins the benchmark, highlighting that architectural efficiency and driver optimizations can outweigh raw numbers. The RX 5300M also supports FP16 at 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pro Duo delivers 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, indicating that GCN 3.0 does not offer the same half-rate FP16 advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529, which is 1.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Duo’s 35,860. This makes the RX 5300M the winner in the available head-to-head benchmark.

Q: How does the process node differ between the two cards?

A: The RX 5300M is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the Pro Duo uses the older 28 nm process. This leads to a transistor density of 40.5M per mm² for the RX 5300M versus 14.9M per mm² for the Pro Duo.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Pro Duo has 512.0 GB/s bandwidth from 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, whereas the RX 5300M offers 168.0 GB/s from 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The Pro Duo’s bandwidth is over three times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Pro Duo has 4096 shading units, compared to the RX 5300M’s 1408. The Pro Duo also has 256 TMUs and 64 ROPs, versus 88 TMUs and 32 ROPs on the RX 5300M.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Pro Duo is rated at 350 W TDP and requires 3x 8-pin power connectors, while the RX 5300M has an 85 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The Pro Duo also suggests a 750 W PSU, which is not specified for the RX 5300M.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Pro Duo supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ: the RX 5300M supports Vulkan 1.4, and the Pro Duo supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 7 nm (RX 5300M) vs 28 nm (Pro Duo)
• Transistors: 6,400 million vs 8,900 million
• Die Size: 158 mm² vs 596 mm²
• Transistor Density: 40.5M / mm² vs 14.9M / mm²
• Memory Size: 3 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs HBM
• Memory Bus Width: 96 bit vs 4096 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 168.0 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) vs 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective)
• Shading Units: 1408 vs 4096
• TMUs: 88 vs 256
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 46.24 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 127.2 GTexel/s vs 256.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.069 TFLOPS vs 8.192 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 85 W vs 350 W
• Power Connectors: None vs 3x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not specified vs 750 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2.170
• Slot Width: Not specified vs Dual-slot
• Dimensions: Not specified vs 277 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2019-11-12 vs 2016-04-25
• Architecture: RDNA 1.0 vs GCN 3.0
• Chip: Navi 14 vs Capsaicin
• Generation: Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) vs Radeon Pro GCN
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile vs FirePro GCN
• Successor: Not specified vs Radeon Pro Polaris
• Launch MSRP: Not specified vs 1,499 USD

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M wins in the only benchmark recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 1.9% margin over the Pro Duo. This makes it the choice for general compute workloads that rely on this specific benchmark, despite its lower raw specifications. Its advantages lie in architectural efficiency, as evidenced by its 7 nm process, higher transistor density, and support for PCIe 4.0. The RX 5300M also wins on power consumption, with an 85 W TDP versus 350 W, and offers no power connector requirements, making it far more suitable for mobile or compact systems. Its modern API support, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, provides better forward compatibility for newer software.

The AMD Radeon Pro Duo, while losing the benchmark, wins decisively on raw compute resources. It offers 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, delivering 8.192 TFLOPS FP32—more than double the RX 5300M’s 4.069 TFLOPS. Its memory subsystem is vastly superior, with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 4096-bit bus, which is critical for memory-intensive professional applications like large dataset processing or high-resolution texture work. The Pro Duo also provides a higher pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 256.0 GTexel/s, making it potentially better suited for tasks that are fill-rate limited. Its dual-slot design, multiple display outputs, and 4 GB of HBM target workstation environments where capacity and bandwidth trump power efficiency. The Pro Duo’s 1,499 USD launch MSRP reflects its professional positioning, though the RX 5300M’s lack of a specified MSRP prevents direct price comparison. Ultimately, the RX 5300M is the better choice for power-sensitive, modern compute tasks, while the Pro Duo remains relevant for legacy professional applications that favor its massive memory bandwidth and compute throughput.