Radeon Pro 5300M vs UHD Graphics 620

Place in performance ranking	775	322
Place by popularity	23	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.72	3.75
Architecture	Gen. 9.5 (2017)	Navi / RDNA (2019−2020)
GPU code name	Kaby-Lake-Refresh GT2	Navi 14
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 September 2017 (6 years ago)	13 November 2019 (4 years ago)
Current price	$706	$2068

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro 5300M has 421% better value for money than UHD Graphics 620.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	24	1280
Core clock speed	300 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	1250 MHz
Number of transistors	189 million	6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	27.60	100.0

Form factor & compatibility

Information on UHD Graphics 620 and Radeon Pro 5300M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	LPDDR3/DDR4	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	192.0 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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.103	1.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

UHD Graphics 620 2.67

Pro 5300M 15.44
+478%

Radeon Pro 5300M outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 478% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

UHD Graphics 620 1030

Pro 5300M 5966
+479%

Radeon Pro 5300M outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 479% in Passmark.

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	13 −477%	75−80 +477%
1440p	16 −463%	90−95 +463%
4K	9 −456%	50−55 +456%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

−300%

24−27
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 −288%	30−35 +288%
Battlefield 5	8 −525%	50−55 +525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 −417%	30−35 +417%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −620%	35−40 +620%
Far Cry New Dawn	10 −320%	40−45 +320%
Forza Horizon 4	12 −508%	70−75 +508%
Hitman 3	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12 −417%	60−65 +417%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 −378%	40−45 +378%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10 −390%	45−50 +390%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −233%	50−55 +233%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −520%	30−35 +520%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −620%	35−40 +620%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	36 −103%	70−75 +103%
Hitman 3	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	34 −82.4%	60−65 +82.4%
Metro Exodus	3 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6 −617%	40−45 +617%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 −345%	45−50 +345%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −450%	30−35 +450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −233%	50−55 +233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −520%	30−35 +520%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −620%	35−40 +620%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −564%	70−75 +564%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5 −1140%	60−65 +1140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 −250%	45−50 +250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −1000%	30−35 +1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −233%	50−55 +233%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−617%

40−45
+617%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −867%	27−30 +867%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −280%	18−20 +280%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −525%	24−27 +525%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Hitman 3	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−317%

24−27
+317%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −467%	16−18 +467%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −467%	16−18 +467%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −200%	14−16 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	6−7

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−250%

14−16
+250%

This is how UHD Graphics 620 and Pro 5300M compete in popular games:

Pro 5300M is 477% faster in 1080p
Pro 5300M is 463% faster in 1440p
Pro 5300M is 456% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 1600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Pro 5300M surpassed UHD Graphics 620 in all 59 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.67	15.44
Recency	1 September 2017	13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	65 Watt