AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M

The data presents a close contest between two AMD RDNA-family GPUs, with the mobile-oriented RX 5300M narrowly ahead in the single available head-to-head benchmark, while the PRO W6400 counters with architectural modernity and efficiency advantages. The RX 5300M wins the only direct comparison (Geekbench OpenCL) by 4.1%, but the PRO W6400 holds a higher average benchmark score of 37157 versus 36529, placing both at the 80th percentile among all GPUs. The verdict depends on whether raw compute throughput or workstation-oriented features matter more.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5300M is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 36529 beats the PRO W6400’s 35027 by 4.1%, representing the sole head-to-head victory in the dataset. This advantage stems from its larger shader array and higher FP32 throughput. The RX 5300M delivers 4.069 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, exceeding the PRO W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS by roughly 14%. For workloads that scale with raw shader count—such as rendering, physics simulation, or general compute—the RX 5300M holds a measurable edge.

The PRO W6400 wins on architectural efficiency and workstation traits. It achieves its performance on a 50 W TDP versus the RX 5300M’s 85 W, a 41% power reduction. The PRO also uses a smaller die (107 mm² vs 158 mm²) with fewer transistors (5,400 million vs 6,400 million), yet still posts a higher average benchmark score of 37157 versus 36529. This suggests better performance-per-transistor and per-watt efficiency. The PRO W6400 also carries a 6 nm process node versus the RX 5300M’s 7 nm, enabling denser packing at 50.5M transistors per mm² compared to 40.5M.

For gaming and mobile use, the RX 5300M’s higher memory bandwidth (168.0 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s) and wider 96-bit bus give it an edge in texture-heavy scenarios. For professional workloads, the PRO W6400’s ray tracing support (12 RT cores) and DirectX 12 Ultimate compliance provide modern API features the RX 5300M lacks entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of AMD’s RDNA architecture. The PRO W6400 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 24 chip, built on TSMC’s 6 nm process. The RX 5300M uses the older RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm node. This generational gap explains several key differences.

The PRO W6400 integrates 12 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the RX 5300M. This enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported applications, which the RX 5300M cannot provide. The PRO also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5300M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The RX 5300M compensates with a substantially larger compute configuration. It has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The PRO W6400 has only 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, though it matches the RX 5300M with 32 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the PRO W6400 achieves a higher pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s versus 46.24 GPixel/s, indicating better per-ROP efficiency. The RX 5300M counters with a higher texture rate of 127.2 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The PRO W6400 runs at a 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost, while the RX 5300M runs at 1000 MHz base and 1445 MHz boost, with a 1181 MHz game clock. The PRO’s higher clocks partially offset its shader deficit, but not enough to overcome the RX 5300M’s 83% more shading units.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 5300M scores 36529 against the PRO W6400’s 35027. This yields a -4.1% delta for the PRO W6400, meaning the RX 5300M is 4.1% faster. This margin is modest but consistent with the FP32 throughput difference.

In Geekbench Vulkan, only the PRO W6400 has a score: 39286. The RX 5300M has no Vulkan benchmark recorded. This 39286 result exceeds the RX 5300M’s best OpenCL score of 36529 by 7.5%, suggesting the PRO W6400 performs relatively better under Vulkan API workloads. However, without a direct Vulkan comparison, this remains an inference.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the mixed picture. The PRO W6400 averages 37157 across its two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL 35027, Vulkan 39286). The RX 5300M averages 36529 from its single OpenCL result. The PRO’s average is 1.7% higher, which aligns with its position in the RX 5300M’s nearest rivals list (deltaPct of -1.7 from the RX 5300M’s perspective).

Nearest rival comparisons show both GPUs clustering tightly. The PRO W6400 sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA RTX 4070 (37648) and 1.7% above the GTX TITAN X (36530). The RX 5300M matches the GTX TITAN X exactly (36530, 0% delta) and sits 0.7% above the NVIDIA T1000 (36289). Both GPUs effectively trade blows with these desktop-class rivals.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | AMD Radeon RX 5300M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Chip | Navi 24 | Navi 14 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1445 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 48 | 88 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 46.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 127.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 4.069 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 85 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2019-11-12 |

The PRO W6400 offers more memory capacity (4 GB vs 3 GB) but with a narrower 64-bit bus and lower bandwidth. The RX 5300M has a wider 96-bit bus and 31% more bandwidth. The PRO W6400’s single-slot design and lack of power connectors suit desktop workstation builds, while the RX 5300M’s display outputs are portable-device dependent, reflecting its mobile origins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 5300M scores 36529 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the PRO W6400’s 35027, making it 4.1% faster. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput of 4.069 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the PRO W6400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The PRO W6400 integrates 12 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The RX 5300M has no RT cores, as it uses the older RDNA 1.0 architecture.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 5300M has 168.0 GB/s bandwidth from a 96-bit bus, compared to the PRO W6400’s 128.0 GB/s from a 64-bit bus. The RX 5300M holds a 31% bandwidth advantage.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP, while the RX 5300M has an 85 W TDP. The PRO W6400 consumes 41% less power while delivering comparable average benchmark scores.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The PRO W6400 averages 37157 across its two benchmarks, versus the RX 5300M’s 36529 from one benchmark. The PRO W6400 is 1.7% higher on average.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The PRO W6400 was released on 2022-01-18, while the RX 5300M was released on 2019-11-12.

The Verdict

Choose the RX 5300M if raw compute throughput is the priority. It wins the only direct benchmark by 4.1%, delivers 14% more FP32 performance, and offers 31% more memory bandwidth. Its larger shader array (1,408 vs 768) and higher texture rate (127.2 GTexel/s vs 111.4 GTexel/s) make it the stronger choice for shader-bound workloads and texture-heavy rendering. The 3 GB memory capacity is smaller, but the wider bus compensates with higher bandwidth.

Choose the PRO W6400 for modern workstation features and efficiency. It provides hardware ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 50 W TDP that is 41% lower than the RX 5300M’s. Its higher pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s vs 46.24 GPixel/s) suggests better fill-rate efficiency, and its 4 GB memory capacity exceeds the RX 5300M’s 3 GB. The PRO W6400 also achieves a higher average benchmark score (37157 vs 36529) and a superior Vulkan result (39286 vs no recorded score).

The data does not declare a single winner. The RX 5300M leads in the head-to-head OpenCL test, but the PRO W6400 counters with architectural advantages and better efficiency metrics. For users prioritizing compute performance, the RX 5300M is the data-backed pick. For those needing ray tracing, lower power draw, and larger memory capacity, the PRO W6400 is justified. Both sit at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, indicating comparable overall standing in the broader market.