AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M and the NVIDIA TITAN V represent two radically different philosophies in GPU design, separated by two years of release dates and distinct market intentions. The data shows a single shared benchmark result: in Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN V scores 157,265 against the RX 5300M’s 36,529, a decisive 76.8% deficit for the AMD mobile part. Despite this massive raw performance gap, the two cards occupy nearly the same percentile rank among all GPUs — the RX 5300M sits at the 80th percentile while the TITAN V sits at the 79th — which suggests that average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story than peak compute.

The Verdict

The verdict from the data is unambiguous for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA TITAN V is the superior performer, delivering a 76.8% higher Geekbench OpenCL score than the AMD Radeon RX 5300M. The TITAN V’s average benchmark score of 34,355 places it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A1000 and 0.6% behind the RTX A2000 12 GB, showing it remains competitive with much newer workstation parts. The RX 5300M’s average score of 36,529 puts it 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Duo, indicating it punches well above its mobile-class positioning.

However, the percentile rankings complicate the picture. The RX 5300M achieves the 80th percentile while the TITAN V achieves only the 79th, meaning the AMD part outperforms a slightly larger fraction of all GPUs despite its far lower absolute score. This suggests the TITAN V’s single OpenCL score is an outlier relative to its other benchmark results — its Passmark G3D score of 19,805 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 9,263 pull its average down, while the RX 5300M only has one recorded benchmark to define its standing. For buyers prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL-accelerated applications, the TITAN V is the clear choice. For those who need a low-power mobile solution with competitive relative performance, the RX 5300M offers a compelling profile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The TITAN V uses the GV100 chip on Volta architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process also at TSMC, but packs 21,100 million transistors onto a massive 815 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story of manufacturing maturity: the RX 5300M achieves 40.5 million transistors per mm², while the TITAN V manages only 25.9 million per mm² — a direct consequence of the older 12 nm node.

The compute pipelines diverge significantly. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the TITAN V fields 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The TITAN V also includes 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 5300M, which has no equivalent hardware. Neither card includes ray tracing cores, so both rely on traditional rasterization and compute paths. The TITAN V’s FP32 throughput of 14.90 TFLOPS dwarfs the RX 5300M’s 4.069 TFLOPS, and the FP16 figures follow the same pattern: 29.80 TFLOPS versus 8.138 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The RX 5300M uses 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN V uses 12 GB of HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 651.3 GB/s — nearly four times the bandwidth. The RX 5300M’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the TITAN V’s runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective), but the TITAN V’s vastly wider bus compensates entirely for its lower clock speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide. The TITAN V scores 157,265, while the RX 5300M scores 36,529 — a delta of 76.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This single result aligns with the theoretical compute figures: the TITAN V has 3.66 times the FP32 throughput and 3.66 times the FP16 throughput of the RX 5300M, which almost exactly matches the 4.3x score difference when accounting for memory bandwidth advantages.

The TITAN V’s other benchmark scores provide context for its average. Its Passmark G3D score of 19,805 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 9,263 are strong, but its Passmark DirectX scores are oddly low — 153 for DX10, 152 for DX11, 81 for DX12, and 213 for DX9. These low DirectX scores drag its average down to 34,355, which is why the RX 5300M’s single OpenCL score of 36,529 actually exceeds the TITAN V’s average benchmark score by 6.3%. The TITAN V’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 152,117 is close to its OpenCL score, suggesting consistent compute performance across APIs, while its Passmark G2D score of 937 indicates modest 2D acceleration relative to its compute muscle.

The RX 5300M has no other benchmark data points, so its entire profile rests on that single OpenCL result. This makes the percentile comparison somewhat misleading — the RX 5300M’s 80th percentile is based on one score, while the TITAN V’s 79th percentile averages ten different tests, several of which (the DirectX suite) appear anomalously low for such a powerful GPU.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals fundamental design choices. The process node differs: 7 nm for the RX 5300M versus 12 nm for the TITAN V. Transistor counts diverge by over 14 billion — 6,400 million versus 21,100 million — and die sizes span 158 mm² versus 815 mm². Clock speeds are closer than one might expect: the RX 5300M has a 1000 MHz base and 1445 MHz boost, while the TITAN V has a 1200 MHz base and 1455 MHz boost. The RX 5300M adds a game clock of 1181 MHz, a feature the TITAN V lacks entirely.

Memory specifications are the most dramatic divergence. The RX 5300M offers 3 GB GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN V offers 12 GB HBM2 with a 3072-bit bus and 651.3 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clocks differ substantially — 1750 MHz versus 848 MHz — but the bus width difference (96-bit versus 3072-bit, a 32x ratio) overwhelms the clock advantage.

Power and physical specifications also differ sharply. The RX 5300M has an 85 W TDP with no power connectors, while the TITAN V has a 250 W TDP requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors with a suggested 600 W PSU. The TITAN V is dual-slot, measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the RX 5300M has no listed dimensions and is described as portable device dependent in its display outputs. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 5300M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the TITAN V. The TITAN V lists specific display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the RX 5300M leaves this dependent on the portable device.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V scores 157,265, which is 76.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 5300M’s 36,529. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded between the two.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 5300M has an average benchmark score of 36,529, while the TITAN V averages 34,355. The RX 5300M’s average is 6.3% higher, despite losing the individual head-to-head test, because the TITAN V’s multiple low Passmark DirectX scores pull its average down.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V has 651.3 GB/s of bandwidth from its 12 GB HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has 168.0 GB/s from 3 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus — the TITAN V offers 3.8 times more bandwidth.

Q: How do their percentiles compare?

A: The RX 5300M ranks at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN V ranks at the 79th. This puts them in nearly identical relative positions despite their vastly different absolute performance levels.

Q: Do either of them support ray tracing?

A: Neither GPU has ray tracing cores. The RX 5300M has no RT cores, and the TITAN V also lacks RT cores, though it does include 640 tensor cores for AI workloads which the RX 5300M completely lacks.

Q: What are their respective transistor densities?

A: The RX 5300M achieves 40.5 million transistors per mm² on its 7 nm process, while the TITAN V achieves 25.9 million per mm² on its 12 nm process. The RX 5300M’s density is 56% higher, reflecting the newer manufacturing node.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN V wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 14.90 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 throughput, combined with 651.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it the obvious choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications, scientific computing, and any workload that can leverage its 640 tensor cores. The 76.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single most important data point for users prioritizing compute density. The TITAN V also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth by wide margins — 12 GB versus 3 GB, and 651.3 GB/s versus 168.0 GB/s — which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M wins on efficiency and relative positioning. Its 85 W TDP versus the TITAN V’s 250 W means it consumes 66% less power while still achieving the 80th percentile rank. Its 7 nm process node with 40.5M transistors per mm² represents a more modern manufacturing approach, and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface offers newer bus technology than the TITAN V’s PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 5300M also wins on average benchmark score — 36,529 versus 34,355 — and on percentile rank, 80th versus 79th. For mobile or compact form factors, the RX 5300M’s lack of power connectors and portable device dependent display outputs make it far more adaptable, while the TITAN V requires a dual-slot chassis, specific power connections, and a 600 W PSU recommendation.

The data ultimately suggests a clear split: the TITAN V for maximum compute throughput in a desktop workstation, and the RX 5300M for balanced mobile performance where power efficiency and modern manufacturing matter more than absolute speed. Their nearly identical percentile ranks indicate that in the broader GPU landscape, both occupy similar tiers of relative capability, but they achieve that standing through entirely different engineering trade-offs.