AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE and the AMD Radeon RX 5300M represent two very different points on the Radeon lineage: a current-generation desktop part built on RDNA 3.0, and an end-of-life mobile chip from the RDNA 1.0 era. The database shows a decisive gap between them, with the RX 7650 GRE winning the single head-to-head benchmark by a wide margin while drawing far more power and occupying a physical slot the mobile part never needed. This comparison is less a close contest than a study in how three architectural generations and a desktop-versus-mobile divide translate into measured performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in the recorded head-to-head set, but it is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7650 GRE scores 83,109 against the RX 5300M's 36,529, a delta of 127.5 percent in the desktop part's favor. In practical terms, the RX 7650 GRE delivers more than double the OpenCL compute throughput of the RX 5300M, and the head-to-head record credits it with one win to zero for the mobile chip.

The aggregate picture reinforces that result. The RX 7650 GRE's average benchmark score across the database is 42,723, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all recorded GPUs. Its nearest rivals are telling: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER sits at an average of 43,223, just 1.2 percent ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 is likewise 1.2 percent ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and Quadro M6000 (43,301) round out the neighborhood at 1.3 percent ahead. In other words, the RX 7650 GRE trades blows within roughly one percent of a well-known upper-mainstream NVIDIA card.

The RX 5300M occupies a very different bracket. Its average score of 36,529 puts it in the 80th percentile, and its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530, a dead heat at 0 percent delta. The NVIDIA T1000 sits 0.7 percent behind, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is 1.7 percent ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo trails by 1.9 percent. This is the company of an older flagship and entry-level professional cards, which contextualizes the 127.5 percent gap to the RX 7650 GRE in the OpenCL test.

The RX 7650 GRE also holds a second database result the mobile part lacks: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,336. There is no comparable entry for the RX 5300M, but the raw silicon disparity, 22.08 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 4.069 TFLOPS, makes the direction of any such comparison clear.

The Verdict

The data leaves little room for interpretation. The RX 7650 GRE wins the only shared benchmark by 127.5 percent, sits three percentile points higher against the full GPU database (83 versus 80), and competes within roughly one percent of the RTX 4070 SUPER on average score. For any workload where OpenCL throughput or modern 3D rendering matters, it is the stronger recorded performer by a wide margin.

The RX 5300M's case rests on entirely different grounds. It is a mobile part with an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and no slot requirement, whereas the RX 7650 GRE is a dual-slot desktop card with a 170 W TDP, a single 8-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. For a portable system where the RX 5300M already exists as integrated hardware, the comparison is moot; the database simply shows what three generations of architecture and a much larger power envelope buy.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7650 GRE wins every measured category. Geekbench OpenCL goes to it at 83,109 versus 36,529, and it is the only one of the pair with a recorded Steel Nomad result (2,336). Its compute profile is also structurally stronger: FP32 throughput of 22.08 TFLOPS against 4.069 TFLOPS, and FP16 running at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (22.08 TFLOPS) versus the RX 5300M's 2:1 ratio (8.138 TFLOPS). Texture fill rate is 345.0 GTexel/s against 127.2 GTexel/s, and pixel fill rate is 172.5 GPixel/s against 46.24 GPixel/s.

The RX 5300M wins on physical and power constraints, though not on any recorded benchmark. Its 85 W TDP is half the desktop card's 170 W, it needs no external power connector, and its display output is portable-device dependent rather than fixed to a card bracket. It is also a much smaller piece of silicon: a 158 mm² die with 6,400 million transistors, versus 204 mm² and 13,300 million for the RX 7650 GRE. None of that shows up in a benchmark score, but it defines where each part can physically exist.

Feature support also splits cleanly. The RX 7650 GRE reports 32 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support; the RX 5300M lists no RT cores and tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both report OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 7650 GRE in the shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL the RX 7650 GRE scores 83,109 versus 36,529 for the RX 5300M, a 127.5 percent advantage.

Q: How does each card rank against the full GPU database?

A: The RX 7650 GRE sits in the 83rd percentile with an average score of 42,723; the RX 5300M sits in the 80th percentile with an average score of 36,529.

Q: Which cards are closest in performance to the RX 7650 GRE?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223 average) and Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262) are each about 1.2 percent ahead, with the RTX 5050 Mobile and Quadro M6000 about 1.3 percent ahead.

Q: Which cards are closest to the RX 5300M?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530) matches it at a 0 percent delta, with the T1000, Radeon PRO W6400, and Radeon Pro Duo all within about 2 percent.

Q: Can both cards handle ray tracing workloads?

A: The database records 32 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support for the RX 7650 GRE; the RX 5300M lists no RT cores and supports DirectX 12 (12_1), so hardware ray tracing is only present on the newer card.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The RX 7650 GRE has a 170 W TDP, one 8-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU; the RX 5300M runs at 85 W with no power connectors as a mobile part.

Architecture Differences

The two cards bracket most of the RDNA story. The RX 7650 GRE uses the Navi 33 chip (codename "Hotpink Bonefish") on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 6 nm process. The RX 5300M uses the older Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0, built at TSMC on a 7 nm process. Both trace their lineage through the RX 7000 and RX 5000 series respectively, and both connect over PCIe 4.0 x8.

The transistor counts and density figures quantify the generational jump: 13,300 million transistors at 65.2M per mm² across 204 mm² for the RX 7650 GRE, against 6,400 million at 40.5M per mm² across 158 mm² for the RX 5300M. That is more than double the transistors at substantially higher density on a slightly larger die.

Core counts scale similarly. The RX 7650 GRE fields 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Clock speeds are far higher on the newer part: a 1,720 MHz base and 2,695 MHz boost with a 2,350 MHz game clock, versus 1,000 MHz base, 1,445 MHz boost, and 1,181 MHz game clock for the mobile chip.

Memory is another clear dividing line. The RX 7650 GRE carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 18 Gbps effective, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 14 Gbps effective, for 168.0 GB/s. Both the capacity and the bandwidth favor the desktop card heavily, and the 3 GB buffer in particular constrains modern workloads regardless of throughput.

Feature sets diverge beyond ray tracing. The RX 7650 GRE offers HDMI 2.1a plus three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and remains in active production, released on February 6, 2025 with a launch MSRP of 279 USD. The RX 5300M, released November 12, 2019, is end-of-life with no successor listed and device-dependent display output. The older card predates the current mainstream feature tier: it lacks RT cores, reports no launch MSRP in the database, and its API ceiling stops at DirectX 12 (12_1) rather than 12 Ultimate. For buyers choosing between them today, only one of the two is even in production.