AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M and AMD Radeon RX 7700S represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile graphics, separated by a generational leap in architecture and process technology. The data places the RX 7700S firmly as the newer, more capable part, yet the RX 5300M holds its own in specific legacy contexts. This analysis compares their architectural foundations, benchmark performance, and the specific use cases where each GPU demonstrates its strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700S has a higher average benchmark score of 33,849 compared to the RX 5300M’s 36,529. However, this average is skewed by the RX 7700S having three benchmark results, including a lower 3DMark score, while the RX 5300M only has a single Geekbench OpenCL score.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The RX 7700S delivers significantly higher raw compute performance, with FP32 throughput rated at 20.48 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS for the RX 5300M. This represents a roughly 5x difference in theoretical floating-point capability.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 7700S includes dedicated ray tracing cores, featuring 32 RT cores. The RX 5300M, based on RDNA 1.0, does not list any RT cores, meaning it lacks hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The RX 7700S comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 96-bit bus, resulting in 168.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 7700S, built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, achieves a transistor density of 65.2M / mm². The RX 5300M, on a 7 nm process, has a density of 40.5M / mm², reflecting the newer node’s efficiency.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M is listed as end-of-life, having been released on November 12, 2019. The AMD Radeon RX 7700S is marked as active, with a release date of January 3, 2023.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, representing a full generational leap. The RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the RX 7700S uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture. This architectural shift brings significant changes in both design philosophy and feature set.

The process node is a key differentiator: the RX 5300M is fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the RX 7700S uses the more advanced 6 nm node. This allows the RX 7700S to pack significantly more transistors, with 13,300 million compared to 6,400 million, despite a modest die size increase from 158 mm² to 204 mm². The transistor density improves from 40.5M / mm² on the older part to 65.2M / mm² on the newer one.

Architecturally, the RX 7700S introduces hardware ray tracing with 32 dedicated RT cores, a feature completely absent from the RX 5300M. The newer GPU also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the RX 5300M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 7700S’s DX12 Ultimate support enables newer rendering features.

The compute units have been substantially expanded. The RX 7700S features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The RX 5300M is smaller, with 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This nearly doubles the pixel and texture throughput on the newer part: the RX 7700S achieves 160.0 GPixel/s and 320.0 GTexel/s, versus 46.24 GPixel/s and 127.2 GTexel/s on the RX 5300M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7700S is the clear winner in almost every measurable category. Its raw compute power is vastly superior, making it the choice for modern gaming workloads, particularly those that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features like ray tracing. The 8 GB memory capacity is also more suited to contemporary game textures and higher resolutions.

The RX 7700S also wins on interface bandwidth, using a PCIe 4.0 x16 connection compared to the RX 5300M’s PCIe 4.0 x8. This provides double the data transfer lanes for CPU-GPU communication, which can matter in CPU-bound scenarios.

The RX 5300M’s only advantage comes from its lower power draw. With a TDP of 85 W versus 100 W for the RX 7700S, the older chip is more power-efficient in absolute terms. This makes it potentially more suitable for thinner, lighter laptops where thermal headroom is limited. However, given that the RX 7700S delivers roughly 5x the FP32 performance for only 15 W more power, the efficiency per watt is far better on the newer part.

The RX 5300M also holds a slight edge in its percentile ranking, sitting at the 80th percentile versus the RX 7700S’s 78th percentile. This is likely due to the RX 7700S’s average score being dragged down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad result.

Specification Differences

The specifications differ substantially across nearly every field. The most notable differences are in the core configuration and memory subsystem.

The RX 7700S doubles the memory capacity to 8 GB from 3 GB, and widens the bus from 96-bit to 128-bit. This results in bandwidth increasing from 168.0 GB/s to 288.0 GB/s. The memory clock also rises from 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) to 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds are significantly higher on the RX 7700S. Its base clock is 1500 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and its boost clock reaches 2500 MHz against 1445 MHz. The game clock, a more realistic sustained frequency, is 2200 MHz on the newer part versus 1181 MHz on the RX 5300M.

The compute configuration shows a clear step up: shading units increase from 1408 to 2048, TMUs from 88 to 128, and ROPs from 32 to 64. The RX 7700S adds 32 RT cores, which the RX 5300M lacks entirely.

Power and interface specs also differ. The RX 7700S has a TDP of 100 W versus 85 W for the RX 5300M, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus x8. The RX 7700S is noted as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the RX 5300M has no slot width specified. Both use portable device dependent display outputs and have no power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the results show a decisive victory for the RX 7700S. The RX 7700S scores 62,983, while the RX 5300M scores 36,529. This represents a delta of -42% for the RX 5300M, meaning the RX 7700S is approximately 72% faster in this OpenCL compute test.

This result aligns with the theoretical FP32 specifications, though the actual performance gap is smaller than the 5x difference in raw TFLOPS would suggest. This indicates that the RX 5300M extracts a relatively higher percentage of its theoretical compute capability in this workload, or that the benchmark is not purely compute-bound.

The RX 7700S also has two additional benchmark results not shared by the RX 5300M: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,185 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 36,380. The Vulkan score is remarkably close to the RX 5300M’s OpenCL score, suggesting that the newer GPU’s API-specific performance varies significantly. The 3DMark result, while not directly comparable, indicates the RX 7700S’s gaming performance in a modern DX12 workload.

In terms of rival positioning, the RX 5300M sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (-1.7% delta). The RX 7700S, despite its higher raw performance, has a lower average score and sits near the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (-0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB (0.5% delta). This discrepancy highlights the impact of benchmark coverage on average scores.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear case for the AMD Radeon RX 7700S as the superior performer. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark with a 72% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, and its architecture supports modern features like ray tracing and DX12 Ultimate. Gamers and content creators seeking maximum mobile performance should choose the RX 7700S, especially for workloads that can leverage its 8 GB frame buffer and higher bandwidth.

The RX 5300M, while end-of-life, still occupies a niche for legacy applications or systems where its 85 W TDP is a hard constraint. Its lower power draw makes it a potential fit for ultraportable designs where the RX 7700S’s 100 W TDP would require more substantial cooling. However, the performance penalty is severe, and the lack of ray tracing support limits its future relevance.

For users deciding between these two, the choice hinges on power versus performance. The RX 7700S offers dramatically better compute, memory capacity, and API support for a modest power increase. The RX 5300M is only preferable in scenarios where the absolute power envelope is non-negotiable, and performance expectations are modest. The benchmark data overwhelmingly favors the RX 7700S, making it the recommended choice for any modern workload.