AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a surprising result. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529, while the AMD Radeon RX 6800 scores 24,508. That is a 49% advantage for the RX 5300M, a decisive win for a mobile part that sits in the Radeon RX 5000 series. This is not a close contest; the RX 5300M outperforms the RX 6800 by a wide margin in this specific compute workload.

However, the RX 6800 has a much richer benchmark history in the database. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 30,095, which places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 5300M, with only one recorded benchmark, has an average score of 36,529 and sits in the 80th percentile. On a percentile basis, the RX 5300M is actually higher, but this is based on a single test, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples. The RX 6800's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti with an average score of 29,945 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile at 29,928 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti at 29,783 (1% behind). The RX 6800 also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6700, which scores 30,433, a 1.1% deficit for the RX 6800.

For the RX 5300M, the nearest rivals are tightly clustered. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 36,530, essentially identical (0% delta). The NVIDIA T1000 scores 36,289, which is 0.7% behind the RX 5300M. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 37,157, putting it 1.7% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35,860, which is 1.9% behind. The RX 5300M sits in a competitive band where small margins separate it from its direct competitors.

The head-to-head data shows one win for the RX 5300M and zero for the RX 6800. That is the entire recorded comparison. The RX 6800's other benchmark scores, such as 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 3,188, PassMark G3D at 22,067, and Geekbench Vulkan at 115,107, are not matched by any RX 5300M results, so they cannot be compared directly. The database simply does not have overlapping tests beyond OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The RX 5300M uses RDNA 1.0, built on the Navi 14 chip, while the RX 6800 uses RDNA 2.0, built on the much larger Navi 21 chip. Both are fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The RX 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The RX 6800 has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, with a higher density of 51.5 million per mm². The RX 6800 is a far more complex chip, and the density improvement reflects the architectural leap to RDNA 2.0.

Memory configurations are completely different. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6800 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, quadrupling bandwidth to 512.0 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 5300M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the RX 6800 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). In terms of raw memory capacity and bandwidth, the RX 6800 is in a different class, which matters for high-resolution textures and large datasets.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RX 6800 also adds 60 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the RX 5300M. Pixel rate and texture rate reflect the difference: the RX 5300M achieves 46.24 GPixel/s and 127.2 GTexel/s, while the RX 6800 reaches 202.1 GPixel/s and 505.2 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is also lopsided: the RX 5300M delivers 4.069 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.138 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 6800 hits 16.17 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The RX 6800 is roughly four times faster in raw compute throughput.

Feature support differs at the API level. The RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes additional features beyond the baseline, plus the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions. The bus interface also differs: the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving the latter twice the host bandwidth.

Physical specifications diverge as well. The RX 5300M is a mobile part with no slot width listed, no power connectors (it draws from the system), and a TDP of 85 W. The RX 6800 is a dual-slot desktop card with 2x 8-pin power connectors, a suggested PSU of 600 W, and a TDP of 250 W. The RX 6800 measures 267 mm in length, 120 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. Display outputs on the RX 6800 include 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C; the RX 5300M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5300M wins in the only direct comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test. With a score of 36,529 versus 24,508, it is 49% ahead of the RX 6800. This suggests that for compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the smaller mobile chip has an unexpected edge. The RX 5300M also sits at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, which is higher than the RX 6800's 75th percentile, though that ranking is based on a single test for the RX 5300M.

The RX 6800 wins in every other measurable category, but these are not head-to-head results. Its average benchmark score of 30,095 is lower than the RX 5300M's single score, but the RX 6800 has a much broader test suite. In the database, the RX 6800 shows strong results in DirectX 11 (PassMark score of 214), DirectX 9 (257), and DirectX 12 (89), plus a PassMark G3D score of 22,067. It also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 115,107 and a Geekbench Metal score of 153,635. None of these can be compared to the RX 5300M because the latter has no corresponding entries.

For gaming and graphics-heavy workloads, the RX 6800 is clearly the more capable card. Its 16 GB of memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth can handle modern game assets at high resolutions, while the RX 5300M's 3 GB and 168.0 GB/s will struggle with large textures. The RX 6800's 60 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, something the RX 5300M lacks entirely. In terms of pixel rate, the RX 6800 is 202.1 GPixel/s versus 46.24 GPixel/s, a 4.4x advantage, which directly translates to higher frame rates at high resolutions.

The RX 5300M, by contrast, is a low-power mobile part. Its 85 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the RX 6800's 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU demand a full desktop power supply and cooling solution. For compute tasks that fit within OpenCL and do not require large memory, the RX 5300M has a measurable performance lead, based on the database's recorded scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 5300M has an average benchmark score of 36,529, while the RX 6800 has an average of 30,095. However, the RX 5300M's average is based on a single test, while the RX 6800's is calculated from multiple benchmarks.

Q: How does the RX 6800 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6800 is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (29,928), and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (29,783). It is 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433).

Q: Does the RX 5300M support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 5300M has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The RX 6800 has 60 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 5300M has 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The RX 6800 has 512.0 GB/s with 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, a 3x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 6800 has a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm², compared to the RX 5300M's 40.5 million per mm². The RX 6800 also has more total transistors: 26,800 million versus 6,400 million.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The RX 5300M was released on 2019-11-12, and the RX 6800 on 2020-10-27.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5300M | AMD Radeon RX 6800 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | Navi 14 | Navi 21 |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 26,800 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1445 MHz | 2105 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1181 MHz | 1815 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus | 96 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 168.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 88 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 60 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.24 GPixel/s | 202.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 127.2 GTexel/s | 505.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.069 TFLOPS | 16.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1) | 32.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm x 120 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2020-10-27 |

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. For raw compute performance in OpenCL, the RX 5300M is the clear winner, with a 49% lead over the RX 6800 in the only head-to-head test. Its 80th percentile ranking and average score of 36,529 place it above the RX 6800's 75th percentile and 30,095 average. If your workload is specifically OpenCL-based and does not require large memory pools, the RX 5300M is the better choice according to the database.

For everything else, the RX 6800 dominates. It has 16 GB of memory versus 3 GB, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 168.0 GB/s, and 60 ray tracing cores versus none. Its compute throughput is nearly four times higher in FP32 (16.17 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS), and its pixel rate is over four times faster. The RX 6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the RX 5300M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RX 6800 also has a wider bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16 versus x8) and more shading units (3,840 versus 1,408).

The RX 5300M is a low-power mobile part with an 85 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. The RX 6800 is a desktop card with a 250 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 6800's launch MSRP was 579 USD, and it measures 267 mm in length.

If you are building a desktop system for gaming, high-resolution rendering, or ray-traced workloads, the RX 6800 is the obvious pick. If you need a mobile GPU for compute tasks that fit within OpenCL and 3 GB of memory, the RX 5300M has a measurable performance advantage. The database's recorded results favor the RX 5300M in the single overlapping benchmark, but the RX 6800's broader feature set and raw specifications make it the more versatile and future-proof card. The choice comes down to workload and form factor, not overall superiority.