AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X and the AMD Radeon 860M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The R9 M295X is a high-power discrete module from 2014, built on a 28 nm process, while the 860M is a modern 4 nm integrated graphics processor from 2025. Despite their contrasting designs, their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the R9 M295X achieving 28,580 points and the 860M achieving 26,401 points, a difference of roughly 8%. This places both in a similar performance tier, with the R9 M295X at the 74th percentile of all GPUs and the 860M at the 72nd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is based on two shared benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The results are split, with each card winning one test. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 22,858 points, narrowly edging out the AMD Radeon 860M’s score of 22,759 points. This gives the M295X a win with a delta of just 0.4%, a margin so slim it is effectively a statistical tie. The data shows that in this compute-oriented API, the older GCN 3.0 architecture still holds a slight edge, likely due to its significantly larger number of shading units (2048 versus 512) and its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, which offers 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the 860M's system-shared memory.

The tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon 860M takes a decisive lead, scoring 30,043 points against the M295X’s 29,091 points. This represents a 3.2% advantage for the newer chip, marking its only benchmark win in the head-to-head data. This result is particularly telling, as it suggests the RDNA 3.5 architecture's modern feature set is better optimized for the Vulkan API. The 860M’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the M295X’s DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, indicates a more modern driver and hardware feature set that likely contributes to this performance gain in a widely used modern graphics API.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the R9 M295X’s average score of 28,580 positions it alongside the AMD Radeon RX 570, which scores 28,766, and just ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 at 28,421. The deltaPct values are all within 1.4%, showing that its overall performance is highly competitive with these established desktop and professional parts. The 860M, with an average score of 26,401, sits in a different tier, competing with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331). While its average is lower than the M295X, the wide margin of victory in the Vulkan test suggests that in modern, API-efficient workloads, the 860M can be the faster card.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice between these two GPUs depends heavily on the software environment. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is the winner in OpenCL-based workloads, where its raw compute resources and dedicated memory give it a slight but measurable 0.4% advantage. Its performance profile is also more consistent, with a higher average benchmark score of 28,580 and a better percentile ranking at 74. For users running legacy applications or compute tasks that rely heavily on OpenCL, the M295X is the proven performer.

The AMD Radeon 860M is the clear choice for modern graphics APIs. Its 3.2% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is its strongest argument, and the data indicates that this advantage stems from its newer architecture. For gaming or applications that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the 860M is the better option. Furthermore, its active production status and 15 W TDP make it a far more practical solution for contemporary portable devices, whereas the M295X is an end-of-life product with a 250 W TDP designed for older MXM modules. The 860M should be picked for new systems prioritizing modern feature support and efficiency, while the M295X is only relevant for its specific legacy platform.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The R9 M295X is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, using a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 366 mm² and 5,000 million transistors. In contrast, the 860M is built on the much newer RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The 860M’s die size and transistor count are not specified in the data, but the process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the efficiency disparity.

The compute configuration is fundamentally different. The M295X has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The 860M, by contrast, has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having a quarter of the shading units, the 860M achieves comparable raw throughput due to its much higher clock speeds, with a boost clock of 3000 MHz compared to the M295X’s unspecified clocks. The 860M also features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the M295X, which predates ray tracing hardware.

The memory subsystems are also worlds apart. The M295X uses a dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 860M uses system-shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This is a fundamental design choice for an integrated GPU, allowing it to use the system's main memory, though at the cost of potential bandwidth limitations and latency compared to dedicated VRAM. The 860M compensates with a higher pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, versus the M295X’s 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has a higher average benchmark score of 28,580, compared to the AMD Radeon 860M’s average of 26,401.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 860M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 860M features 8 ray tracing cores, a feature that the AMD Radeon R9 M295X does not have.

Q: Which card performs better in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M performs better, scoring 30,043 points to the AMD Radeon R9 M295X’s 29,091 points, a 3.2% difference.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, while the AMD Radeon 860M has a significantly lower TDP of 15 W.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is built on a 28 nm process, while the AMD Radeon 860M is built on a much more advanced 4 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a higher pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M295X’s 23.14 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, securing a 0.4% victory over the 860M. This indicates a strength in compute-heavy workloads that utilize OpenCL. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides a distinct advantage in memory-intensive tasks. Its higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking also suggest it is the stronger overall performer in a mixed workload. The R9 M295X also benefits from having nearly twice the average score of its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, when comparing raw scores.

The AMD Radeon 860M wins decisively in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, with a 3.2% lead. This demonstrates its superior performance in modern graphics APIs. Its architecture, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, is a clear advantage for contemporary games and applications. The 860M also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, which are critical for fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its extremely low TDP of 15 W makes it the clear winner for battery-powered devices and thin-and-light laptops, where the 250 W TDP of the M295X is simply not feasible.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification, reflecting their distinct design goals and generations.

• Architecture: GCN 3.0 vs. RDNA 3.5
• Process Node: 28 nm vs. 4 nm
• Transistors: 5,000 million vs. unknown
• Die Size: 366 mm² vs. unknown
• Shading Units: 2048 vs. 512
• TMUs: 128 vs. 32
• ROPs: 32 vs. 16
• Ray Tracing Cores: None vs. 8
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs. System Shared
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs. System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs. System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s vs. System Dependent
• Memory Clock: 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) vs. System Shared
• Boost Clock: Not specified vs. 3000 MHz
• Base Clock: Not specified vs. 600 MHz
• Pixel Rate: 23.14 GPixel/s vs. 48.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 92.54 GTexel/s vs. 96.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 2.961 TFLOPS vs. 3.072 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 250 W vs. 15 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs. IGP
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs. PCIe 4.0 x8
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs. 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs. 1.4
• Production Status: End-of-life vs. Active
• Release Date: 2014-11-22 vs. 2025-02-28
• Transistor Density: 13.7M / mm² vs. not specified