AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 5600M over the AMD Radeon RX 5300M. In the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5600M scores 59,589 points against 36,529 for the RX 5300M. That is a 63.1% advantage, a massive gap that separates these two mobile GPUs by a full performance tier. The RX 5600M does not just edge ahead; it nearly doubles the output of the smaller chip in compute workloads.

Looking beyond the direct head-to-head, the RX 5600M also holds a considerable edge in the database’s broader benchmark results. Its average benchmark score sits at 46,601, while the RX 5300M averages 36,529. That 27.6% difference in aggregate performance reinforces the Geekbench result, showing that the RX 5600M is consistently faster across multiple workloads, not just in a single synthetic test.

The RX 5600M also produces additional benchmark records that the RX 5300M lacks entirely. The database lists 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1,320, Geekbench Metal at 76,653, and Geekbench Vulkan at 48,843 for the RX 5600M. No comparable scores exist for the RX 5300M in those tests, which limits the sample size but also underscores the RX 5600M’s broader measurement footprint.

When placed against its nearest rivals, the RX 5600M sits in a tightly contested range. Its average score of 46,601 is essentially tied with the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614, a delta of 0%. It is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46,702, 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46,043, and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972. This places the RX 5600M in a crowded field where a few points separate competitors, but the RX 5600M’s 85th percentile versus all GPUs shows it sits comfortably above the majority of the database.

The RX 5300M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average of 36,529 is essentially dead even with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530, a delta of 0%. It is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289, 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37,157, and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Duo at 35,860. The RX 5300M holds an 80th percentile versus all GPUs, which is lower than the RX 5600M’s 85th percentile. The two GPUs do not directly compete with each other; the RX 5600M outclasses the RX 5300M by a margin that rivals the difference between adjacent market tiers.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the faster GPU in every measurable way. Its 63.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest delta between any two directly compared benchmarks in this pair. The RX 5600M also holds a higher average score, a higher percentile rank, and a more complete set of benchmark records. Any user selecting between these two should choose the RX 5600M for raw compute performance, provided the thermal and power constraints of the system allow it.

The RX 5300M is not without its own merits, but they lie in efficiency and system integration rather than speed. It has a lower TDP of 85 W versus 150 W for the RX 5600M, which means it is better suited for thinner, lighter laptops with more modest cooling. The RX 5300M also uses a smaller die and fewer transistors, which historically correlates with lower manufacturing costs and lower power draw. For users who only need light gaming or general GPU acceleration and prioritize battery life over frame rates, the RX 5300M can make sense.

However, from a pure performance standpoint, the RX 5600M dominates. It is faster in the OpenCL test, has a higher average score, and holds a higher percentile ranking across all GPUs (85th versus 80th). The database records zero wins for the RX 5300M. The verdict is straightforward: pick the RX 5600M for performance, pick the RX 5300M only if the power budget is a hard constraint.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same RDNA 1.0 architecture and are built on the same 7 nm TSMC process node. However, they diverge in nearly every physical and architectural parameter. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip, a larger die at 251 mm² with 10,300 million transistors. The RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip, a smaller die at 158 mm² with 6,400 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical: 41.0 million per mm² for the RX 5600M versus 40.5 million per mm² for the RX 5300M. The difference in die size and transistor count explains most of the performance gap.

The RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 63.6% advantage in shading units, a 63.6% advantage in TMUs, and a 100% advantage in ROPs for the RX 5600M. These numbers directly map to the observed benchmark delta: the RX 5600M’s compute resources are roughly 64% higher, which almost exactly matches its 63.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL.

Memory configurations differ substantially as well. The RX 5600M carries 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 168 GB/s. The RX 5600M has 71.4% more memory bandwidth, which benefits texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. The RX 5300M runs its memory at 14 Gbps effective (1,750 MHz base), while the RX 5600M runs at 12 Gbps effective (1,500 MHz base). Even with a slower memory clock, the RX 5600M’s wider bus delivers much higher bandwidth.

Clock speeds are the one area where the RX 5300M holds a nominal advantage. The RX 5300M has a base clock of 1,000 MHz, a game clock of 1,181 MHz, and a boost clock of 1,445 MHz. The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1,035 MHz, a game clock of 1,190 MHz, and a boost clock of 1,265 MHz. The RX 5300M boosts 14.2% higher, but that does not compensate for the 63.7% fewer shading units. Pixel rate and texture rate tell the same story: the RX 5600M achieves 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s, while the RX 5300M achieves 46.24 GPixel/s and 127.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M versus 4.069 TFLOPS for the RX 5300M, a 43.3% advantage. FP16 follows the same pattern at 11.66 TFLOPS versus 8.138 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio.

The bus interface is also different: the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This matters for bandwidth to the rest of the system, but the GPU’s own memory bandwidth dominates real-world performance. Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores; both rely on the same RDNA 1.0 architecture for geometry and shading.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scored 59,589 versus 36,529 for the RX 5300M, a 63.1% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 5600M has 288.0 GB/s, while the RX 5300M has 168.0 GB/s. The RX 5600M’s 192-bit bus versus the RX 5300M’s 96-bit bus explains the difference.

Q: Does the RX 5300M have any advantage over the RX 5600M?

A: Yes, it has a higher boost clock (1,445 MHz versus 1,265 MHz) and a lower TDP (85 W versus 150 W). It also has a higher memory clock (1,750 MHz versus 1,500 MHz), but the RX 5600M’s wider bus makes its overall bandwidth higher.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs in the database?

A: The RX 5600M ranks in the 85th percentile, while the RX 5300M ranks in the 80th percentile. The RX 5600M also has a higher average score: 46,601 versus 36,529.

Q: Are there benchmarks where the RX 5300M wins?

A: The recorded data shows zero wins for the RX 5300M. The RX 5600M wins the only head-to-head test and has additional benchmark records that the RX 5300M does not have.

Q: What is the core count difference?

A: The RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600M wins in every computationally demanding scenario. Its 63.1% lead in OpenCL means it is better for GPU-accelerated applications in video editing, 3D rendering, and scientific computing. Its 6 GB of memory and 288 GB/s of bandwidth allow it to handle larger textures and higher resolutions without hitting a memory ceiling. The RX 5600M also has a higher pixel rate (80.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (182.2 GTexel/s), making it the clear choice for gaming at 1080p or 1440p with high detail settings. Its 150 W TDP suggests it is intended for larger laptops with adequate cooling, where sustained performance matters more than battery life.

The RX 5300M wins in efficiency-constrained scenarios. Its 85 W TDP is nearly half that of the RX 5600M, which makes it suitable for thinner, lighter laptops where thermal and power budgets are tight. The higher boost clock of 1,445 MHz allows it to hit peak performance in short bursts, which can feel responsive in lighter workloads. For users who rarely push the GPU to its limit, the RX 5300M offers adequate performance for casual gaming, office productivity, and media playback, all while drawing less power. In the database, the RX 5300M’s score of 36,529 is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530, so it is a respectable performer for its class, but not in the same league as the RX 5600M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in every silicon-level parameter except process node, architecture, foundry, and API support. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. The RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 41.0M / mm² versus 40.5M / mm².

Clock speeds differ: the RX 5600M has a base of 1,035 MHz and a boost of 1,265 MHz, while the RX 5300M has a base of 1,000 MHz and a boost of 1,445 MHz. The RX 5600M has a game clock of 1,190 MHz versus 1,181 MHz for the RX 5300M.

Memory is a major differentiator: 6 GB versus 3 GB GDDR6, 192-bit versus 96-bit bus, 288.0 GB/s versus 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clocks are 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600M and 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RX 5300M.

Compute resources: 2,304 versus 1,408 shading units, 144 versus 88 TMUs, 64 versus 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 80.96 GPixel/s versus 46.24 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 182.2 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 5.829 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS. FP16 is 11.66 TFLOPS versus 8.138 TFLOPS.

Power and connectivity: TDP is 150 W versus 85 W. The RX 5600M has a slot width of IGP and no power connectors; the RX 5300M has no slot width and no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 5600M and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 5300M.

Release dates differ: the RX 5600M launched on 2020-07-06, while the RX 5300M launched on 2019-11-12. Both are end-of-life products, both share the same predecessor (Polaris Mobile), and neither has a successor listed. Both use the same API set (DX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). The RX 5600M has no benchmark data for performance; the RX 5300M has only Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 5600M has a higher average score (46,601 versus 36,529) and a higher percentile (85th versus 80th).