Radeon Pro 5300M vs 520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 520 with Radeon Pro 5300M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5300M outperforms 520 by a whopping 645% 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 | 944 | 403 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.88 | 12.64 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Banks | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (8 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 100.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 20 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 36 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 15
−633%
| 110−120
+633%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−913%
|
80−85
+913%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−490%
|
55−60
+490%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−1000%
|
40−45
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−373%
|
50−55
+373%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−213%
|
110−120
+213%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−395%
|
190−200
+395%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−379%
|
90−95
+379%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−913%
|
80−85
+913%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−490%
|
55−60
+490%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−1000%
|
40−45
+1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−1700%
|
50−55
+1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−373%
|
50−55
+373%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−280%
|
35−40
+280%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−213%
|
110−120
+213%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−406%
|
90−95
+406%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−490%
|
55−60
+490%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−373%
|
50−55
+373%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−213%
|
110−120
+213%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−913%
|
80−85
+913%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−715%
|
100−110
+715%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−600%
|
130−140
+600%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1023%
|
140−150
+1023%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−767%
|
75−80
+767%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 520 and Pro 5300M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5300M is 633% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Pro 5300M is 2567% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5300M performs better in 52 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.87 | 13.93 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 13 November 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 85 Watt |
Radeon 520 has 70% lower power consumption.
Pro 5300M, on the other hand, has a 644.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 520 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
