Arc A380 vs Radeon Pro 5300M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 5300M with Arc A380, including specs and performance data.

Pro 5300M
2019
4 GB GDDR6, 85 Watt
15.13

Arc A380 outperforms Pro 5300M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking353341
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data44.34
Power efficiency12.5014.88
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameNavi 14DG2-128
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date13 November 2019 (5 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores12801024
Core clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz2050 MHz
Number of transistors6,400 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate100.0131.2
Floating-point processing power3.2 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8064
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data222 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s186.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
DLSS-+

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.

Pro 5300M 15.13
Arc A380 15.89
+5%

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.

Pro 5300M 5955
Arc A380 6252
+5%

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 HD45−50
−8.9%
49
+8.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−75.7%
65
+75.7%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−80.8%
47
+80.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
−36.7%
41
+36.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−29.7%
48
+29.7%
Battlefield 5 60−65
−3.2%
65−70
+3.2%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−42.3%
37
+42.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
−10%
33
+10%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−24%
62
+24%
Fortnite 80−85
−3.7%
85−90
+3.7%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−24.6%
76
+24.6%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−7.7%
40−45
+7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−5.7%
55−60
+5.7%
Valorant 120−130
−3.3%
120−130
+3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+15.6%
32
−15.6%
Battlefield 5 60−65
−3.2%
65−70
+3.2%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−19.2%
31
+19.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
−3.6%
200−210
+3.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+3.4%
29
−3.4%
Dota 2 90−95
−3.3%
95−100
+3.3%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−14%
57
+14%
Fortnite 80−85
−3.7%
85−90
+3.7%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−18%
72
+18%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−7.7%
40−45
+7.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+66.7%
33
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 30−33
−33.3%
40
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−5.7%
55−60
+5.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−69.2%
66
+69.2%
Valorant 120−130
−3.3%
120−130
+3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
−3.2%
65−70
+3.2%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−3.8%
27
+3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+15.4%
26
−15.4%
Dota 2 90−95
−3.3%
95−100
+3.3%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−4%
52
+4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+7%
57
−7%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−7.7%
40−45
+7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−5.7%
55−60
+5.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+14.7%
34
−14.7%
Valorant 120−130
−3.3%
120−130
+3.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
−3.7%
85−90
+3.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
−4.6%
110−120
+4.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
−7.1%
150−160
+7.1%
Valorant 150−160
−3.3%
150−160
+3.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
−7.5%
40−45
+7.5%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−6.3%
30−35
+6.3%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−5.6%
35−40
+5.6%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
−6.3%
30−35
+6.3%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Valorant 80−85
−5%
80−85
+5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 50−55
+4%
50−55
−4%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−8%
27−30
+8%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how Pro 5300M and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 9% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 67% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A380 is 81% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 5300M is ahead in 6 tests (9%)
  • Arc A380 is ahead in 55 tests (86%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.13 15.89
Recency 13 November 2019 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 75 Watt

Arc A380 has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 5300M and Arc A380.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A380 is a desktop one.

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.


AMD Radeon Pro 5300M
Radeon Pro 5300M
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

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.


4 172 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 873 votes

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 5300M or Arc A380, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.