AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins every recorded test in this comparison. Across three Geekbench compute workloads, the Pro 570 takes all three victories, while the Radeon R9 M295X records zero wins. This is not a close split where each card finds its own niche; it is a clean sweep for the newer part.

Looking at the individual tests, the Pro 570’s largest margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 27,702 against the M295X’s 22,858, a 21.2% advantage. In Geekbench Metal, the gap is 18.2%, with the Pro 570 posting 39,945 versus 33,790. The narrowest win is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro 570 still leads by 9.9%, scoring 31,974 against 29,091. So while the Pro 570 wins everywhere, the Vulkan test shows the M295X is at its most competitive, suggesting the older architecture handles that API relatively better than Metal or OpenCL.

For a user prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Pro 570 is the clear choice. The data shows it is ahead in every API, with the biggest gap in OpenCL workloads. The M295X, by contrast, has no benchmark where it pulls ahead, meaning there is no use case in this dataset where it offers an advantage over the Pro 570. The only nuance is that the Vulkan margin is smaller, so if a workload is heavily Vulkan-bound, the M295X will be closer, but it still loses.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The Radeon Pro 570 uses GCN 4.0 on a chip codenamed Ellesmere, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Radeon R9 M295X uses GCN 3.0 with a chip codenamed Amethyst, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm node. That process shrink is significant: the Pro 570 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The M295X has 5,000 million transistors on a much larger 366 mm² die, yielding just 13.7 million per square millimeter. The Pro 570 is denser and more efficient in terms of die area per transistor.

The memory subsystems differ in bandwidth. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, but the Pro 570 runs its memory at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), producing 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M295X runs memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 160.0 GB/s. That is a 35.6% bandwidth advantage for the Pro 570, which helps explain its higher compute scores.

The core configurations are interesting. The M295X actually has more shading units (2,048 versus 1,792) and more texture mapping units (128 versus 112), while both have 32 ROPs. However, the Pro 570 compensates with much higher clocks: a base of 1000 MHz and boost of 1105 MHz, whereas the M295X has no recorded base or boost clocks. The Pro 570’s higher clocks and greater memory bandwidth overcome the M295X’s wider shader array. The result is that the Pro 570 delivers 3.960 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS. Similarly, pixel rate is 35.36 GPixel/s for the Pro 570 versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 123.8 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s.

API support is similar, with both cards supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro 570 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Power draw differs substantially: the Pro 570 is rated at 150 W TDP and is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, while the M295X is a 250 W MXM module. The Pro 570 also uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the M295X uses MXM-B (3.0). Release dates are far apart, with the Pro 570 launching in June 2017 and the M295X in November 2014.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 is the superior GPU. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score (33,207 versus 28,580), and sits at the 78th percentile among all GPUs compared to the M295X’s 74th percentile. The Pro 570 is 16.2% faster on average across the three tests, with individual margins ranging from 9.9% to 21.2%.

For a user choosing between these two, the Pro 570 is the pick for any compute-heavy task, whether Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan. The M295X’s only redeeming feature is that its Vulkan deficit is the smallest, but it still loses. The Pro 570 also consumes less power (150 W versus 250 W) and uses a smaller, denser chip, which is relevant for system integration. The M295X’s higher shader count does not translate into a win anywhere in the data.

The M295X might be the only option in systems that specifically require an MXM module, since the Pro 570 is an IGP. But from a pure performance standpoint, the database shows no reason to pick the M295X. The Pro 570 is faster in every measured category, has better memory bandwidth, higher clocks, and a more recent architecture. The verdict is straightforward: choose the Radeon Pro 570 unless the form factor forces the MXM-based M295X.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins with a score of 39,945 versus 33,790 for the Radeon R9 M295X, a margin of 18.2%.

Q: How much faster is the Pro 570 in OpenCL?

A: The Pro 570 scores 27,702 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the M295X scores 22,858, giving the Pro 570 a 21.2% lead, the largest of the three tests.

Q: Is the M295X competitive in any benchmark?

A: The M295X loses all three tests. Its smallest deficit is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it trails by 9.9% (29,091 versus 31,974), but it still loses.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro 570 has 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 at 6.8 Gbps effective, while the M295X has 160.0 GB/s from GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective. Both use a 256 bit bus with 4 GB capacity.

Q: Do the two cards have the same shader count?

A: No, the M295X has more shading units (2,048 versus 1,792) and more TMUs (128 versus 112), but the Pro 570 has higher clocks and achieves higher FP32 throughput (3.960 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS).

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The Pro 570 is rated at 150 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors, using PCIe 3.0 x16. The M295X is rated at 250 W TDP and is an MXM module using MXM-B (3.0), also with no power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Radeon Pro 570 comes in Geekbench OpenCL. The Pro 570 scores 27,702, while the M295X scores 22,858, a delta of 21.2%. This is the most lopsided result in the comparison. The Pro 570’s combination of higher clocks, more memory bandwidth, and newer architecture pays off most in this compute workload.

Geekbench Metal shows an 18.2% lead for the Pro 570, with scores of 39,945 versus 33,790. This is the highest absolute score recorded for either card in any test, and it reinforces that the Pro 570 excels in Apple’s Metal API. The M295X’s best absolute score is also in Metal (33,790), but it still falls well short.

The closest contest is Geekbench Vulkan. Here the Pro 570 scores 31,974, and the M295X scores 29,091, a 9.9% difference. This is the only test where the M295X stays within double digits. The M295X’s Vulkan 1.2.170 support is older than the Pro 570’s Vulkan 1.3, which may explain why the gap narrows, but the Pro 570 still comes out ahead.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture. The Pro 570 averages 33,207 across all tests, while the M295X averages 28,580. That puts the Pro 570 16.2% higher on average. In terms of percentile ranking among all GPUs, the Pro 570 sits at the 78th percentile, while the M295X sits at the 74th percentile.

For context on where these cards sit relative to other GPUs, the Pro 570’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, with an average score of 33,170 and a delta of 0.1%, meaning the Pro 570 is essentially tied with it. The M295X’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, with an average score of 28,421 and a delta of 0.6% in favor of the M295X. The M295X also sits close to the AMD Radeon RX 570, which scores 28,766 and is 0.6% faster, and the Radeon RX 470 at 28,996, which is 1.4% faster.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is the process node and die size. The Pro 570 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with a 232 mm² die and 5,700 million transistors, giving a density of 24.6 million per mm². The M295X uses TSMC’s 28 nm process with a 366 mm² die and 5,000 million transistors, for a density of 13.7 million per mm². The Pro 570 is the denser, more modern chip.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Pro 570 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1105 MHz. The M295X has no recorded base or boost clocks, which is a notable omission. Memory clocks also differ: the Pro 570 runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), while the M295X runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is otherwise identical in capacity (4 GB GDDR5) and bus width (256 bit), but the bandwidth differs: 217.0 GB/s for the Pro 570 versus 160.0 GB/s for the M295X. Core counts go the other way: the M295X has 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs, while the Pro 570 has 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs.

Compute rates favor the Pro 570. Its FP32 throughput is 3.960 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 3.960 TFLOPS (1:1). The M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. Pixel rate is 35.36 GPixel/s for the Pro 570 versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 123.8 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s.

Power and form factor are major differentiators. The Pro 570 has a 150 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors, using a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The M295X has a 250 W TDP and is an MXM module with no power connectors, using an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Both are marked as portable device dependent for display outputs.

API support is similar except for Vulkan version: the Pro 570 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the M295X supports 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The release dates are separated by about two and a half years, with the Pro 570 launching on June 4, 2017, and the M295X on November 22, 2014. Both are end-of-life products. The M295X lists a predecessor (“Solar System”) and successor (“Polaris Mobile”), while the Pro 570 has none recorded. Neither card has a launch MSRP in the database.