Radeon Pro 5300M vs GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB

Place in performance ranking	218	322
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	16.33	3.75
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Navi / RDNA (2019−2020)
GPU code name	GP106	Navi 14
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	26 December 2017 (6 years ago)	13 November 2019 (4 years ago)
Current price	$203	$2068

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1060 5 GB has 335% better value for money than Pro 5300M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1280	1280
Core clock speed	1506 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1709 MHz	1250 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	136.7	100.0
Floating-point performance	4,375 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB and Radeon Pro 5300M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	250 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	8008 MHz	12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.2 GB/s	192.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1060 5 GB 23.46
+51.8%

Pro 5300M 15.45

GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB outperforms Radeon Pro 5300M by 52% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1060 5 GB 9058
+51.8%

Pro 5300M 5966

GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB outperforms Radeon Pro 5300M by 52% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

35−40
+45.8%

24−27

−45.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +34.6%	24−27 −34.6%
Battlefield 5	75−80 +50%	50−55 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +38.9%	35−40 −38.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +42.9%	40−45 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +50.7%	70−75 −50.7%
Hitman 3	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +45.2%	60−65 −45.2%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +47.1%	50−55 −47.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +51.2%	40−45 −51.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +42.9%	45−50 −42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +50%	50−55 −50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +34.6%	24−27 −34.6%
Battlefield 5	75−80 +50%	50−55 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +38.9%	35−40 −38.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +42.9%	40−45 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +50.7%	70−75 −50.7%
Hitman 3	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +45.2%	60−65 −45.2%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +47.1%	50−55 −47.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +51.2%	40−45 −51.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +42.9%	45−50 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +51.5%	30−35 −51.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +50%	50−55 −50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +34.6%	24−27 −34.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +38.9%	35−40 −38.9%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +50.7%	70−75 −50.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +45.2%	60−65 −45.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +42.9%	45−50 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +51.5%	30−35 −51.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +50%	50−55 −50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70
+51.2%

40−45

−51.2%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +37.9%	27−30 −37.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +42.1%	18−20 −42.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +40%	24−27 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Hitman 3	27−30 +50%	18−20 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +42.9%	27−30 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40
+40%

24−27

−40%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Hitman 3	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +41.2%	16−18 −41.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +41.2%	16−18 −41.2%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+50%

14−16

−50%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	23.46	15.45
Recency	26 December 2017	13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	65 Watt