AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs NVIDIA RTX A6000 Comparison

# NVIDIA RTX A6000 vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M

The NVIDIA RTX A6000 and AMD Radeon RX 5300M occupy entirely different tiers of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects that gap dramatically. The A6000 is a workstation-class card built for professional rendering, AI training, and compute-heavy workloads, while the RX 5300M is a mobile graphics chip designed for thin-and-light laptops that need modest 1080p gaming capability. In the single shared benchmark recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A6000 scores 193,937 points against the RX 5300M's 36,529 points, a 430.9% advantage. The A6000 also lands in the 84th percentile of all GPUs tested, while the RX 5300M sits at the 80th percentile, meaning both outperform the majority of the database, but the A6000 does so with far more headroom.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A6000 delivers 38.71 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 5300M's 4.069 TFLOPS. That is a 9.5x difference in raw shader throughput, directly reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL score gap.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The A6000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A6000 has 16x the capacity and 4.6x the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The A6000 includes 84 dedicated RT cores (part of the Ampere architecture's RTX feature set). The RX 5300M has no RT cores listed in the database, meaning it lacks dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The database lists both as end-of-life products. The A6000 was released in October 2020, and the RX 5300M came out in November 2019.

Q: What are their relative performance percentiles?

A: The A6000 sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5300M is at the 80th percentile. The A6000's average benchmark score is 44,075, while the RX 5300M's average is 36,529.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: The A6000 has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The A6000 has roughly 7.6x the shading units, 3.8x the TMUs, and 3.5x the ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and process nodes. The A6000 uses NVIDIA's GA102 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die. This works out to a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The RX 5300M uses AMD's Navi 14 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5 million per mm².

The A6000 is based on the Ampere architecture, which is designed around workstation and datacenter workloads. It includes 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, making it suitable for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The RX 5300M is based on RDNA 1.0, AMD's first-generation Navi architecture, which has no dedicated RT or tensor cores. The A6000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5300M only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds differ notably. The A6000 has a base clock of 1410 MHz and a boost clock of 1800 MHz, while the RX 5300M has a 1000 MHz base, 1181 MHz game clock, and 1445 MHz boost. Despite the RX 5300M's lower clocks, its 7 nm node gives it better efficiency per watt, though the A6000's sheer scale overwhelms that advantage in absolute performance.

The memory configurations could not be more different. The A6000 uses a 384-bit bus with 48 GB of GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), producing 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M uses a 96-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yielding 168.0 GB/s. The A6000's bandwidth is more than enough for heavy compute workloads, while the RX 5300M's narrower bus is typical for a mobile part.

Power and physical design also diverge. The A6000 has a 300 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, and an 8-pin EPS power connector, requiring a 700 W suggested PSU. It measures 267 mm long and 112 mm tall. The RX 5300M has an 85 W TDP, no power connector listed (it relies on the laptop's motherboard power delivery), and no physical dimensions recorded since it is a mobile chip. The A6000 connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one common benchmark result for these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. This is a compute-oriented test that measures raw parallel processing capability, and the results are stark. The A6000 scores 193,937 points, while the RX 5300M scores 36,529 points. The delta is 430.9% in favor of the A6000.

To put that in context, the RX 5300M's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X with an average score of 36,530 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289 (0.7% behind), the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37,157 (1.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo at 35,860 (1.9% behind). The RX 5300M sits right in this cluster, which is telling: it performs like a mid-range professional GPU from several generations ago.

The A6000's nearest rivals tell a different story. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile averages 43,667 (0.9% behind the A6000), the RTX 4070 Ti averages 44,795 (1.6% ahead), the Quadro M6000 averages 43,301 (1.8% behind), and the RTX 5050 Mobile averages 43,268 (1.9% behind). The A6000 is essentially trading blows with modern high-end consumer and mobile GPUs, which is remarkable for a workstation card that also offers 48 GB of memory and full RT/tensor core support.

The single benchmark result is lopsided, but it is also the only data point. The A6000 wins 1 out of 1 head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the RX 5300M. In every measurable way from the recorded data, the A6000 is the faster GPU, and the gap is so large that the RX 5300M's 80th percentile ranking looks modest next to the A6000's 84th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification that matters. Here is the breakdown of fields where they diverge:

• Architecture: Ampere (NVIDIA) vs. RDNA 1.0 (AMD)
• Process node: 8 nm (Samsung) vs. 7 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 28,300 million vs. 6,400 million
• Die size: 628 mm² vs. 158 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.1M / mm² vs. 40.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 1410 MHz vs. 1000 MHz
• Boost clock: 1800 MHz vs. 1445 MHz
• Game clock: Not applicable vs. 1181 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) vs. 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 48 GB vs. 3 GB
• Memory bus width: 384 bit vs. 96 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 768.0 GB/s vs. 168.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 10,752 vs. 1,408
• Texture mapping units: 336 vs. 88
• Render output units: 112 vs. 32
• RT cores: 84 vs. None
• Tensor cores: 336 vs. None
• Pixel rate: 201.6 GPixel/s vs. 46.24 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 604.8 GTexel/s vs. 127.2 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 38.71 TFLOPS vs. 4.069 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 38.71 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 300 W vs. 85 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs. Not applicable (mobile)
• Power connectors: 8-pin EPS vs. None
• Suggested PSU: 700 W vs. Not applicable
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs. PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a vs. Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Release date: October 2020 vs. November 2019
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing vs. Polaris Mobile
• Successor: Workstation Ada vs. None listed
• Launch MSRP: 4,649 USD vs. No listed MSRP

The only common fields are GDDR6 memory type, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A6000 wins in every recorded benchmark and every relevant specification category. Its 430.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for any compute-heavy workload. The 48 GB memory capacity is suited for large dataset handling, AI model training, and 8K video processing. The 768.0 GB/s bandwidth supports massive texture streaming and complex shader workloads. The inclusion of RT cores and tensor cores gives it advantages in ray-traced rendering and deep learning inference that the RX 5300M cannot match at all.

The A6000's 84th percentile ranking and its near-parity with modern GPUs like the RTX 4090 Mobile (0.9% behind) and RTX 4070 Ti (1.6% ahead) mean it remains a viable high-end option even years after release. Its dual-slot cooler and 300 W TDP are acceptable for a desktop workstation, and the 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs allow multi-monitor professional setups.

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its strengths are relative: the 7 nm process node gives it better power efficiency per watt compared to the A6000's 8 nm node, and the 85 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops where power draw is a constraint. The 2:1 FP16 ratio (8.138 TFLOPS) shows it can accelerate certain half-precision workloads, but this is a minor advantage in a mobile gaming GPU. The RX 5300M's 80th percentile ranking means it outperforms most integrated graphics and older discrete GPUs, making it a decent choice for budget gaming laptops in its era.

The RX 5300M also wins on portability by definition, being a mobile chip with no physical dimensions, no power connector, and display output dependent on the host laptop. It is not a competitor to the A6000 in any meaningful sense; it is a different class of product for a different use case.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A6000 is categorically superior to the AMD Radeon RX 5300M in every measurable aspect. The 430.9% Geekbench OpenCL lead, the 12.75x difference in FP32 TFLOPS (38.71 vs. 4.069), and the 16x memory capacity advantage (48 GB vs. 3 GB) all point to the A6000 being a professional-grade tool while the RX 5300M is an entry-level mobile part.

Anyone needing workstation-class compute, large memory buffers, ray tracing, or AI acceleration should pick the A6000 without hesitation. Its 84th percentile ranking and competitive scores against modern high-end GPUs like the RTX 4090 Mobile and RTX 4070 Ti confirm it remains relevant. The 4,649 USD launch MSRP reflects its professional positioning.

The RX 5300M is only suitable for a lightweight laptop where gaming at modest settings and low power draw (85 W) are the priorities. Its 80th percentile ranking shows it is not a weak GPU in absolute terms, but it sits in a completely different performance tier. For anyone comparing these two directly, the choice is obvious: the A6000, unless the requirement is a mobile form factor with minimal power consumption, in which case the RX 5300M is the only option that physically fits. Otherwise, the A6000 wins on every number in the database.