Radeon Pro 5300M vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile and Radeon Pro 5300M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms Pro 5300M by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 188 | 418 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 23.00 | 12.76 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (7 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 100.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.492 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 132 | 55−60
−58.3%
|
| 1440p | 84
+140%
| 35−40 |
| 4K | 54
+157%
| 21−24 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+169%
|
35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+134%
|
75−80 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+169%
|
35−40 |
| Battlefield 5 | 165
+170%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+134%
|
75−80 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33 |
| Far Cry 5 | 128
+172%
|
45−50 |
| Fortnite | 140−150
+85%
|
80−85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+113%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+156%
|
50−55 |
| Valorant | 200−210
+77.6%
|
110−120 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+169%
|
35−40 |
| Battlefield 5 | 162
+166%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+134%
|
75−80 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+44.3%
|
190−200 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33 |
| Dota 2 | 98
+7.7%
|
90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+162%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 6 | 95−100
+153%
|
35−40 |
| Fortnite | 140−150
+85%
|
80−85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+113%
|
60−65 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+115%
|
50−55 |
| Metro Exodus | 99
+230%
|
30−33 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+156%
|
50−55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+389%
|
35−40 |
| Valorant | 200−210
+77.6%
|
110−120 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 152
+149%
|
60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+150%
|
30−33 |
| Dota 2 | 92
+1.1%
|
90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+145%
|
45−50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+113%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+156%
|
50−55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100
+170%
|
35−40 |
| Valorant | 181
+56%
|
110−120 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+85%
|
80−85 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+193%
|
27−30 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+120%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 6 | 55−60
+168%
|
21−24 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+200%
|
21−24 |
| Metro Exodus | 59
+247%
|
16−18 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+31.6%
|
130−140 |
| Valorant | 230−240
+80.3%
|
130−140 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+210%
|
40−45 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+229%
|
30−35 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+157%
|
35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+195%
|
20−22 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+174%
|
30−35 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+136%
|
10−12 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11 |
| Far Cry 6 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+162%
|
24−27 |
| Metro Exodus | 37
+270%
|
10−11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+274%
|
18−20 |
| Valorant | 190−200
+188%
|
65−70 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+265%
|
20−22 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6 |
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+96.1%
|
50−55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+273%
|
14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+140%
|
24−27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16 |
This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and Pro 5300M compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 140% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 140% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 157% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5000 Mobile is 389% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 5000 Mobile surpassed Pro 5300M in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.48 | 13.93 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 13 November 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 85 Watt |
RTX 5000 Mobile has a 133% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro 5300M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, a 42% more advanced lithography process, and 23% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 5300M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
