Radeon Pro 5300M vs GeForce GTX 275

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 275 with Radeon Pro 5300M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 275
2009
896 MB GDDR3, 219 Watt
3.60

Pro 5300M outperforms GTX 275 by a whopping 332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking723348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.38no data
Power efficiency1.1312.59
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGT200BNavi 14
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date15 January 2009 (16 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2401280
Core clock speed633 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1250 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)219 Watt85 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate50.64100.0
Floating-point processing power0.6739 TFLOPS3.2 TFLOPS
ROPs2832
TMUs8080

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount896 MB4 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1134 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth127.0 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.04.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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 275 3.60
Pro 5300M 15.55
+332%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GTX 275 1383
Pro 5300M 5977
+332%

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

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
World of Tanks 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
World of Tanks 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.60 15.55
Recency 15 January 2009 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 219 Watt 85 Watt

Pro 5300M has a 331.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 685.7% more advanced lithography process, and 157.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 275 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
GeForce GTX 275
AMD Radeon Pro 5300M
Radeon Pro 5300M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 139 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 275 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 172 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.