AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 represent two entirely different corners of the GPU market, separated by process node, memory philosophy, and intended workload. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro GV100 scores 150,004 against the RX 5300M’s 36,529, a delta of -75.6% for the AMD part. However, both cards share the same 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs, which is a curious statistical quirk that suggests their average scores across all tests place them in similar company, even if their raw compute peaks diverge wildly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput in the provided benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 dominates in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 150,004, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529. This represents a 75.6% deficit for the AMD card in that specific test.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro GV100 features 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, providing 168.0 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Their API feature sets are identical in this regard.

Q: What is the transistor and die size disparity?

A: The GV100 packs 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, while the RX 5300M has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The AMD chip uses a 7 nm process versus 12 nm for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 5,120 shading units and 320 TMUs, compared to the RX 5300M’s 1,408 shading units and 88 TMUs. The GV100 also has 128 ROPs versus 32 on the AMD card.

Q: What are the launch dates of these products?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 was released on 2018-03-26, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M came later on 2019-11-12. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split: the Quadro GV100 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, but the RX 5300M has its own domain of efficiency and portability. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GV100 is the outright winner, but the RX 5300M’s 85 W TDP versus the GV100’s 250 W TDP suggests a massive advantage in power-constrained environments. The AMD card also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GV100 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, which could imply better bandwidth scaling on modern platforms for the RX 5300M despite its narrower physical link. For mobile or compact systems, the RX 5300M’s lack of power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs make it the only viable choice among the two, as the GV100 is a dual-slot, 267 mm long card requiring a 600 W PSU and a single 8-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational and philosophical. AMD’s RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0, a 7 nm design from TSMC. It features 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The GV100 uses the Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, giving a density of 25.9M per mm². The RX 5300M has no tensor cores, while the GV100 includes 640 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD part. Both lack dedicated ray tracing cores. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different: the RX 5300M uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus, while the GV100 uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus, leading to over five times the memory bandwidth. The GV100’s FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS on the RX 5300M, and its FP16 performance is 33.32 TFLOPS versus 8.138 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Specification Differences

The primary specification differences are stark. Memory size: 3 GB versus 32 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM2. Bus width: 96-bit versus 4096-bit. Bandwidth: 168.0 GB/s versus 868.4 GB/s. Shading units: 1,408 versus 5,120. TMUs: 88 versus 320. ROPs: 32 versus 128. Pixel rate: 46.24 GPixel/s versus 208.3 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 127.2 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.069 TFLOPS versus 16.66 TFLOPS. TDP: 85 W versus 250 W. Process node: 7 nm versus 12 nm. Transistors: 6,400 million versus 21,100 million. The GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz and boost of 1627 MHz, while the RX 5300M has a base of 1000 MHz and boost of 1445 MHz. The GV100 is dual-slot, 267 mm long, and uses a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the RX 5300M has no power connectors and is portable-device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide. The Quadro GV100 scores 150,004, while the RX 5300M scores 36,529, a delta of -75.6% for the AMD card. This means the GV100 delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute performance in this test. However, the RX 5300M’s nearest rivals in the data include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37,157 (-1.7% delta), which puts its single benchmark score in line with those desktop parts. The GV100, meanwhile, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile at 35,435 (0.2% delta) in its own average score comparison, which is surprising given the GV100’s massive OpenCL win — this suggests its average across all tests is dragged down by other workloads. The GV100 also has additional benchmark data: Passmark G3D at 19,650, Passmark GPU Compute at 9,069, and Passmark DirectX 11 at 168, none of which the RX 5300M has data for.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the clear performance winner in compute-heavy tasks, as evidenced by its 150,004 OpenCL score versus 36,529 for the RX 5300M. Its 32 GB of HBM2 memory and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets, and its 640 tensor cores add capabilities the AMD card lacks entirely. The RX 5300M, however, wins on efficiency and physical footprint: its 85 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and portable-device-dependent outputs make it a drop-in solution for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the GV100 requires a dual-slot chassis, a 600 W PSU, and a 267 mm length. For a user needing raw compute and massive memory capacity, the GV100 is the only choice. For a mobile workstation or a system where power and space are at a premium, the RX 5300M is the practical pick. The data shows that the GV100’s average benchmark score of 35,520 is actually lower than the RX 5300M’s 36,529, but this is an artifact of the GV100’s broader test suite, not a reflection of their peak capabilities. The RX 5300M’s percentile rank matches the GV100 at 80, which is a statistical coincidence that masks the true performance gulf revealed in the head-to-head benchmark. In short: the GV100 is a compute monster, and the RX 5300M is a low-power enabler — pick based on workload, not on averages.