AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 67,695 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529 points. That is a lead of 85.3% for the NVIDIA card, which is a substantial gap in raw compute performance.

To put that margin in context, look at where each card sits among its nearest rivals. The RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46,043, placing it at the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, averages 45,972, a difference of only 0.2%. The Intel Arc A730M trails by 1%, and both the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and Intel Arc A530M are behind by 1.2%. The A2000 is therefore tightly clustered with a group of much newer and larger GPUs, and its OpenCL result is consistent with that positioning.

The RX 5300M, by contrast, averages 36,529 across its recorded benchmarks, good for the 80th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, matches it exactly with a 0% delta. The NVIDIA T1000 is 0.7% behind, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is 1.7% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo sits 1.9% behind. The RX 5300M is a mid-pack performer in its own tier, but that tier is far below the A2000's neighborhood.

The single head-to-head result tells the story cleanly: the RTX A2000 wins the only common benchmark, and it wins by a wide margin. No benchmark in the database shows the RX 5300M ahead. When comparing these two cards, the performance hierarchy is not close.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA106 chip, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 12,000 million transistors onto a 276 mm² die, for a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture, built around the Navi 14 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It carries 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, with a density of 40.5 million per square millimeter.

The A2000's transistor count is nearly double that of the RX 5300M, and its die is significantly larger. The RX 5300M does have a smaller process node, which helps it fit a respectable amount of hardware into a compact package, but the raw resource disparity is overwhelming.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It also includes 26 dedicated ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. The A2000's shading unit count is more than double, and its tensor core array is a feature the AMD card simply lacks.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The RX 5300M runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and boosts to 1445 MHz, with a game clock of 1181 MHz. The A2000 runs much lower clocks: 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Despite that, the A2000's FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS for the RX 5300M. The A2000 nearly doubles the AMD card's single-precision output, thanks to its wider architecture and higher core count. In FP16, the RX 5300M does reach 8.138 TFLOPS, slightly ahead of the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS, but the AMD number is achieved at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it is not true native FP16 throughput. The A2000 delivers its FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which is more efficient for workloads that use reduced precision.

Memory systems also diverge sharply. The A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s. The A2000 has double the capacity and 71.4% more bandwidth. Both use GDDR6, but the NVIDIA card's wider bus is a clear advantage.

Power consumption is reversed. The RX 5300M carries an 85 W TDP, while the A2000 has a 70 W TDP. The A2000 delivers significantly more performance while drawing less power, an efficiency gap that reflects the generational difference between the two designs. The A2000 also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, halving the available bus bandwidth for the AMD card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 67,695 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 36,529 for the AMD Radeon RX 5300M. That is an 85.3% advantage for the A2000.

Q: Does the RX 5300M have ray tracing hardware?

A: No. The RX 5300M has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The RX 5300M is built on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the A2000 uses Samsung's 8 nm process. However, the A2000 still packs nearly twice the transistors.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The RTX A2000 averages 46,043 across its recorded benchmarks, placing it at the 85th percentile. The RX 5300M averages 36,529, placing it at the 80th percentile.

Q: How does the power draw compare?

A: The A2000 has a 70 W TDP, while the RX 5300M has an 85 W TDP. The A2000 delivers far higher performance at a lower power target.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins the only direct benchmark by 85.3%, has more than double the shading units, has ray tracing and tensor cores where the RX 5300M has none, offers double the memory capacity, and delivers 71.4% more memory bandwidth. It does all of this at a 15 W lower TDP.

The RX 5300M is not without merits. It has a smaller die, a more advanced process node, and higher clock speeds. Its FP16 output of 8.138 TFLOPS exceeds the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS, though at a 2:1 ratio. Its texture rate of 127.2 GTexel/s is slightly higher than the A2000's 124.8 GTexel/s. These are narrow wins in secondary metrics, not in overall performance.

For compute workloads, content creation, or any task that stresses the GPU, the RTX A2000 is the clear choice. The RX 5300M is a laptop-oriented part from an earlier generation, and the benchmark data reflects that gap. The A2000's position at the 85th percentile, surrounded by rivals like the RTX 5880 Ada Generation and Arc A730M, shows it competes in a higher performance class despite its compact size. The RX 5300M's 80th percentile placement, surrounded by older desktop cards like the GTX TITAN X and the T1000, confirms its more modest standing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 | AMD Radeon RX 5300M |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1445 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 1181 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3328 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 104 | 88 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 26 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 104 | None |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 4.069 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 57.60 GPixel/s | 46.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 127.2 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 70 W | 85 W |

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

| Release Date | 2021-08-09 | 2019-11-12 |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins in nearly every meaningful category. It dominates compute throughput, with 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.069 TFLOPS for the RX 5300M. It wins memory capacity, bandwidth, and bus width. It has ray tracing and tensor hardware, which the RX 5300M lacks entirely. It draws less power, uses a wider PCIe interface, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the RX 5300M's DirectX 12 (12_1). It also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a practical workstation card for multi-monitor setups.

The RX 5300M has a few narrow advantages. Its FP16 output is higher at 8.138 TFLOPS, though at a 2:1 ratio that indicates a less efficient implementation. Its texture rate is marginally higher at 127.2 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. It has a higher base clock and boost clock, and its 7 nm process node gives it a smaller die. These are secondary specifications, not performance wins in the benchmark data.

For practical purposes, the choice is between a desktop workstation card with a fixed form factor and a mobile GPU whose output is described as "Portable Device Dependent." The A2000 is a dual-slot card with a 167 mm length, 69 mm height, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 5300M has no listed dimensions, no slot width, and no suggested PSU, reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

Users who need a compact, efficient workstation GPU with ray tracing, tensor cores, and high compute throughput should choose the RTX A2000. Users who are constrained to a laptop with an RX 5300M and cannot swap hardware should understand that the performance gap is large, and that the A2000 represents a significantly faster tier of hardware. There is no benchmark in the database where the RX 5300M comes out ahead, and the 85.3% OpenCL deficit is the only direct comparison available. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX A2000 is the superior GPU in every performance metric that matters.