Arc A380 vs Radeon Pro 5300M

Place in the ranking	349	337
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	44.20
Power efficiency	12.59	14.88
Architecture	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Navi 14	DG2-128
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	13 November 2019 (5 years ago)	14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

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 cores	1280	1024
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	2050 MHz
Number of transistors	6,400 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	85 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	100.0	131.2
Floating-point processing power	3.2 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	64
Tensor Cores	no data	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	222 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 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 type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	186.0 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3

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.

Pro 5300M 15.35

Arc A380 16.00
+4.2%

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 5977

Arc A380 6230
+4.2%

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

45−50

−4.4%

47
+4.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −74.1%	47 +74.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −4%	50−55 +4%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −37%	37 +37%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −46.9%	94 +46.9%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −4.9%	40−45 +4.9%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −46.5%	63 +46.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −2.6%	35−40 +2.6%
Valorant	60−65 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −4%	50−55 +4%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −14.8%	31 +14.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Dota 2	55−60 +69.7%	33 −69.7%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −14.3%	64 +14.3%
Fortnite	85−90 −3.5%	85−90 +3.5%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −25%	80 +25%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −4.9%	40−45 +4.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +69.7%	33 −69.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −2.3%	44 +2.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −2.7%	110−120 +2.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −2.6%	35−40 +2.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%
Valorant	60−65 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%
World of Tanks	190−200 −3%	200−210 +3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −4%	50−55 +4%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Dota 2	55−60 +1.8%	55−60 −1.8%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −1.8%	55−60 +1.8%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +4.9%	61 −4.9%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −4.9%	40−45 +4.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −2.7%	110−120 +2.7%
Valorant	60−65 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −4.2%	24−27 +4.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −4.1%	150−160 +4.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	100−110 −3.7%	110−120 +3.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −6.5%	30−35 +6.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 −4.2%	24−27 +4.2%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −5.9%	35−40 +5.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −4.8%	21−24 +4.8%
Valorant	35−40 −5.1%	40−45 +5.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 −3.7%	27−30 +3.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −3.7%	27−30 +3.7%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −4.3%	45−50 +4.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −3.7%	27−30 +3.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +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 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −4.5%	21−24 +4.5%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Valorant	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%

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

Arc A380 is 4% faster in 1080p

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 70% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A380 is 74% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro 5300M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
Arc A380 is ahead in 44 tests (80%)
there's a draw in 8 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.35	16.00
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 4.2% 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.

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