AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along workload types, and the AMD Radeon RX 5300M takes the only direct head-to-head victory in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD part scores 36,529 against the NVIDIA Quadro M5000's 29,481, a 23.9% advantage. That single win defines the entire comparison in compute-oriented tasks, where the newer RDNA 1.0 architecture and its higher clock speeds translate into a measurable lead.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000, however, holds its own in a different arena. It is the only one of the two with a recorded Vulkan benchmark score, posting 32,931. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has no Vulkan result in the database, so the data cannot confirm how the two compare in that API. What the numbers do show is that the Quadro M5000 is not a slouch in general compute either: its OpenCL score of 29,481 places it at the 76th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD card sits at the 80th percentile. Both are well above the median, but the AMD part is the one with the higher ceiling in the tested workload.

Looking at the rivals each card attracts, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M lands within a tight cluster of professional and high-end desktop parts. Its average benchmark score of 36,529 puts it within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37,157) and essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530, a 0% delta). The NVIDIA T1000 trails by 0.7% at 36,289, and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo is 1.9% behind at 35,860. This is a dense field where the RX 5300M is competitive but not dominant.

The Quadro M5000's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 31,206 sits right next to the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q (31,220, 0% delta), the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (31,087, 0.4% ahead), the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532, 1% behind), and the TITAN RTX (31,676, 1.5% behind). The spread is even tighter than the AMD card's cluster, suggesting the Quadro M5000 sits in a very crowded performance band where tiny margins separate it from much newer hardware.

So where does each one win? The AMD Radeon RX 5300M wins in raw OpenCL compute throughput, and by a substantial margin. The Quadro M5000 wins in the only category where it has a recorded data point that the AMD card lacks: Vulkan performance. There is no overlap in the tested APIs beyond OpenCL, so the use-case split hinges on whether the workload is compute-heavy (favoring AMD) or Vulkan-based (where only NVIDIA has a score in the database).

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies and different eras. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a much older 28 nm node. That process gap is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm. The transistor counts reflect the density advantage of the newer node. AMD packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA fits 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, a density of just 13.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is physically smaller but more densely packed, while the NVIDIA chip is larger and more spread out.

The memory subsystems diverge as well. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 211.6 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has more capacity and more bandwidth, but it also has a much larger memory bus to feed. The AMD card compensates with faster memory clocks: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro. Higher effective speed per pin, but a narrower interface.

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The Quadro M5000 has more shading units (2,048 versus 1,408), more texture mapping units (128 versus 88), and more render output units (64 versus 32). Yet the AMD card is not far behind in raw throughput. The RX 5300M hits 4.069 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro M5000 posts 4.252 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part achieves this with fewer cores by running at much higher clocks: 1000 MHz base and 1445 MHz boost versus 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The Quadro M5000 has a higher pixel rate (66.43 GPixel/s versus 46.24 GPixel/s) and a slightly higher texture rate (132.9 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s), but the AMD card is competitive in texture throughput despite having fewer TMUs.

The RDNA 1.0 architecture also brings FP16 support at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 8.138 TFLOPS, while the Maxwell 2.0 part has no recorded FP16 capability. That is a meaningful feature difference for any workload that can exploit half-precision math. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is equal on paper.

The bus interface differs too. The RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro M5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. For a mobile-first part, the AMD card's narrower but newer bus makes sense. The Quadro M5000 is a desktop workstation card with a dual-slot cooler, a 267 mm length, a 111 mm height, and a single 6-pin power connector. The AMD card has no power connectors listed and is described as portable device dependent for display outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops. The Quadro M5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a classic workstation configuration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529 against the Quadro M5000's 29,481. That is a 23.9% delta in favor of AMD. To put that in context, the AMD card's score is closer to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530, 0% delta) than it is to the Quadro M5000. The Quadro's score, meanwhile, sits just 0.4% above the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in its own rival list, which is remarkable given the generational gap between those two parts.

The single biggest win for AMD is this OpenCL result. A 23.9% margin is not a narrow lead; it is a substantial gap that suggests the RDNA 1.0 architecture's efficiency advantage is real in compute workloads. The AMD card achieves this with 1,408 shading units versus 2,048 for NVIDIA, meaning it is doing more with fewer cores. The higher boost clock of 1445 MHz versus 1038 MHz helps explain the result, as does the 7 nm process allowing tighter power delivery per clock.

The biggest win for NVIDIA is the Vulkan benchmark, but only by default. The Quadro M5000 scores 32,931 in Geekbench Vulkan, and there is no corresponding AMD result in the database. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has no Vulkan score recorded, so the data cannot confirm whether the AMD card would outperform it there. What can be said is that the Quadro M5000's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score (32,931 versus 29,481), suggesting the Maxwell architecture handles Vulkan particularly well. The AMD card's OpenCL score is higher than the Quadro's Vulkan score, but that is not a like-for-like comparison.

The overall win tally is 1 for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA in direct head-to-head tests. The average benchmark score for the AMD card is 36,529, while the Quadro M5000 averages 31,206 across its two recorded tests. That 5,323-point gap in average scores roughly mirrors the OpenCL delta, since OpenCL dominates the AMD card's recorded results.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M is 23.9% faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 36,529 versus the NVIDIA Quadro M5000's 29,481.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The Quadro M5000 is the only one of the two with a recorded Vulkan score, posting 32,931. The AMD card has no Vulkan result in the database, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RX 5300M is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (0% delta) and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. The Quadro M5000 is within 0.4% of the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER and 1.5% behind the TITAN RTX.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M5000 has 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 bus, while the RX 5300M has 168.0 GB/s from a 96-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The RX 5300M was released on 2019-11-12 and the Quadro M5000 on 2015-06-28.

Q: Which card has better FP16 performance?

A: The RX 5300M supports FP16 at 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The Quadro M5000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. For compute-heavy workloads measured through OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M is the stronger part. Its 23.9% lead over the Quadro M5000 is the only direct head-to-head result in the database, and it aligns with the card's higher percentile ranking (80th versus 76th). The AMD card achieves this with a smaller die, fewer shading units, and lower power draw (85 W versus 150 W), which suggests the 7 nm RDNA 1.0 architecture is doing more work per watt and per transistor.

For Vulkan-based tasks, the Quadro M5000 is the only card with a recorded score. Its 32,931 result shows it is capable in that API, and its Maxwell 2.0 architecture appears to handle Vulkan better than OpenCL, based on the 11.7% improvement between its two scores. But without an AMD Vulkan score, the database cannot crown a winner there.

The Quadro M5000 also offers more memory: 8 GB versus 3 GB, with higher bandwidth (211.6 GB/s versus 168.0 GB/s). For workloads that need large frame buffers or large datasets, that capacity advantage matters regardless of compute speed. The RX 5300M is a mobile part with no display outputs of its own, while the Quadro M5000 is a dual-slot desktop card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs. The choice depends on the platform and the workload. For OpenCL compute in a laptop, the RX 5300M wins. For Vulkan or memory-hungry tasks in a desktop workstation, the Quadro M5000 is the safer pick.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5300M | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,200 million |

| Die size | 158 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1445 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Game clock | 1181 MHz | None |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 3 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 96 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 168.0 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1408 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 88 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 46.24 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 127.2 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.069 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 85 W | 150 W |

| Slot width | None | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | None | 267 mm, 111 mm |

| Release date | 2019-11-12 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | None | Quadro Pascal |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 36,529 | 29,481 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | None | 32,931 |

| Average benchmark score | 36,529 | 31,206 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 80 | 76 |