Radeon Vega 7 vs Pro 5300M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 5300M with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5300M outperforms Vega 7 by a whopping 108% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 346 | 533 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Power efficiency | 12.62 | 11.44 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 1280 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.0 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.2 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| 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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
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
+95.7%
| 23
−95.7%
|
| 1440p | 50−55
+100%
| 25
−100%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+100%
| 15
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Elden Ring | 45−50
+243%
|
14
−243%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+113%
|
24−27
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+121%
|
29
−121%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+100%
|
21
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+40.7%
|
27
−40.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+114%
|
29
−114%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+113%
|
24−27
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+229%
|
17
−229%
|
| Elden Ring | 45−50
+200%
|
16
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+100%
|
28
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+95.5%
|
40−45
−95.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+167%
|
24
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+180%
|
15
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+141%
|
46
−141%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+343%
|
14
−343%
|
| World of Tanks | 190−200
+243%
|
58
−243%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+113%
|
24−27
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+69.7%
|
30−35
−69.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+205%
|
21
−205%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+85%
|
60−65
−85%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+148%
|
25
−148%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+118%
|
65−70
−118%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−110
+102%
|
50−55
−102%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+138%
|
12−14
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+105%
|
18−20
−105%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
This is how Pro 5300M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Pro 5300M is 96% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5300M is 100% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5300M is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro 5300M surpassed Vega 7 in all 50 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.58 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 13 November 2019 | 13 April 2021 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 45 Watt |
Pro 5300M has a 108.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 88.9% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
