Radeon Pro 5300M vs HD 7600G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7600G with Radeon Pro 5300M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5300M outperforms HD 7600G by a whopping 1699% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1141 | 353 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | 12.55 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (5 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 | 384 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 320 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 424 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.18 | 100.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3256 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 80 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1133%
|
35−40
+1133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1133%
|
35−40
+1133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1133%
|
35−40
+1133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−829%
|
190−200
+829%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−2600%
|
100−110
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−2680%
|
130−140
+2680%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Pro 5300M is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5300M is ahead in 37 tests (58%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.85 | 15.29 |
| Recency | 1 September 2012 | 13 November 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 85 Watt |
HD 7600G has 347.4% lower power consumption.
Pro 5300M, on the other hand, has a 1698.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7600G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7600G is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
