Radeon RX 5300M vs R7 260X

Place in the ranking	507	392
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.55	no data
Power efficiency	4.97	10.42
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code name	Bonaire	Navi 14
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$139	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 cores	896	1408
Core clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1445 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	85 Watt
Texture fill rate	61.60	127.2
Floating-point processing power	1.971 TFLOPS	4.069 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	56	88

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
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	170 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	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	4 GB	3 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	104 GB/s	168.0 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	-	1.2.131

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.

R7 260X 8.31

RX 5300M 12.87
+54.9%

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.

R7 260X 3194

RX 5300M 4947
+54.9%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 260X 4380

RX 5300M 10306
+135%

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

35−40

−74.3%

61
+74.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.97

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +0%	66 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	69 +0%	69 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +0%	71 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Dota 2	76 +0%	76 +0%
Elden Ring	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	35 +0%	35 +0%
Fortnite	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	64 +0%	64 +0%
Metro Exodus	46 +0%	46 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	43 +0%	43 +0%
World of Tanks	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	49 +0%	49 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Dota 2	95 +0%	95 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
World of Tanks	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Elden Ring	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Fortnite	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Valorant	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

This is how R7 260X and RX 5300M compete in popular games:

RX 5300M is 74% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.31	12.87
Recency	8 October 2013	13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	85 Watt

R7 260X has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 5300M, on the other hand, has a 54.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 35.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260X is a desktop card while Radeon RX 5300M is a notebook one.

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