AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and AMD Radeon R9 M395X represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that starkly. The R9 M395X, an older GCN 3.0 part, wins the only head-to-head test, but the W5500X is a more modern, efficient architecture that offers a different set of trade-offs. This analysis breaks down exactly where each card excels based on the available data, helping you decide which legacy part better suits a specific workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench Metal test, and the results are decisive. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X scores 33953 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27973 points. This gives the R9 M395X a 17.6% performance advantage in this specific test. That is not a marginal win; it's a substantial lead that suggests the older card has a significant edge in raw Metal API compute performance.

However, the average benchmark score tells a different story. The W5500X has an average score of 27973, which places it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs. The R9 M395X, despite its higher Metal score, has an average score of 25891 across all its tested workloads, placing it in the 71st percentile. This discrepancy is crucial. The R9 M395X’s average is dragged down by its much lower OpenCL score of 17829, suggesting its performance is highly inconsistent and API-dependent. The W5500X, with only a Metal score listed, shows more consistent performance in that metric.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces the W5500X's standing. The W5500X is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, trailing by a negligible 0.2%. It is also within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M. This indicates that the W5500X's Metal performance is firmly in the upper-midrange tier of GPUs from its generation. The R9 M395X, conversely, is closely matched with the AMD FirePro W7100 (ahead by 0.1%) and the AMD FirePro D700 (ahead by 0.2%), but it trails the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT by 0.5% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile by 0.6%. The W5500X trades blows with high-end desktop cards, while the R9 M395X sits alongside professional workstation and mobile parts.

The data indicates that if your primary application relies on the Metal API, the R9 M395X is the clear winner. The 17.6% delta is significant and would be noticeable in real-world tasks. Conversely, if you are looking at a more balanced or average workload profile, the W5500X’s higher average score and percentile ranking suggest it is the more consistently capable card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their performance and efficiency profiles. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is based on the RDNA 1.0 architecture and uses the Navi 14 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This modern node allows for a transistor density of 40.5M / mm² within a 158 mm² die, housing 6,400 million transistors. This is a massive leap in efficiency compared to the older design.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R9 M395X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Amethyst chip, built on a much older 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process is considerably less dense, allowing for only 13.7M / mm² on a much larger 366 mm² die, which contains 5,000 million transistors. The smaller, denser node of the W5500X is the primary reason it can achieve higher clock speeds and better performance-per-watt, despite having fewer raw transistors.

The compute units are also organized differently. The W5500X has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The R9 M395X has more of each: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the older card a theoretical raw compute advantage in terms of sheer shader count, but the newer architecture's efficiency and higher clocks help close the gap. The R9 M395X’s higher pixel rate of 23.14 GPixel/s and texture rate of 92.54 GTexel/s are far lower than the W5500X’s 56.22 GPixel/s and 168.7 GTexel/s, respectively.

Memory technology is another major divider. The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M395X also has 8 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, resulting in lower bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The newer GDDR6 standard and higher effective speed of 14 Gbps on the W5500X allow it to overcome its narrower bus and provide significantly more memory bandwidth. In terms of APIs, the W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R9 M395X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the W5500X has a newer Vulkan version (1.4) compared to the R9 M395X's 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M395X is faster, scoring 33953 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X's 27973. This represents a 17.6% performance lead for the R9 M395X.

Q: Does the newer architecture guarantee better performance?

A: No. Despite being built on the newer RDNA 1.0 architecture and a 7 nm process, the W5500X loses the head-to-head Metal benchmark to the older GCN 3.0 based R9 M395X.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5500X has significantly higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has a TDP of 125 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X has a lower TDP of 75 W and does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has a better average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has a higher average benchmark score of 27973, placing it in the 73rd percentile. The R9 M395X has an average score of 25891, placing it in the 71st percentile.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X have a production status of "End-of-life."

Specification Differences

Here are the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the data provided.

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W5500X | AMD Radeon R9 M395X |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 96 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.22 GPixel/s | 23.14 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 168.7 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.398 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 125 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x HDMI 2.0b | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | None |

| Release Date | 2019-12-10 | 2015-05-04 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X is the clear winner in the single available head-to-head benchmark. If your primary workload relies on the Metal API, the data shows this card provides a 17.6% performance advantage over the W5500X. This makes it the better choice for applications that are heavily optimized for Metal and can take advantage of its higher shading unit count of 2048. It also consumes less power, with a TDP of 75 W compared to the W5500X's 125 W, which could be a deciding factor in a system with limited power delivery or cooling, particularly given its MXM Module form factor.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins on overall efficiency and theoretical compute power. Its FP32 performance of 5.398 TFLOPS is nearly double the R9 M395X's 2.961 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance of 10.80 TFLOPS is vastly superior. This suggests it would be significantly better at compute-heavy tasks like machine learning inference or scientific simulations that can utilize FP16. Its memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s is also 40% higher, which is crucial for high-resolution textures and large data sets. The W5500X also holds a better average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking, indicating more consistent performance across different types of workloads. Its modern display outputs (2x HDMI 2.0b) make it more suitable for a modern desktop setup.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on your target application. The data is unambiguous: for a pure Metal API workload, the AMD Radeon R9 M395X is the superior performer. Its 17.6% lead in the Geekbench Metal test is a decisive advantage that would translate to faster performance in Metal-based rendering or compute tasks. Its lower 75 W TDP also makes it a more power-efficient option for a dedicated compute role.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is the better all-around card for a broader range of tasks. Despite losing the single head-to-head test, it demonstrates significantly higher theoretical compute power in both FP32 (5.398 TFLOPS vs 2.961 TFLOPS) and FP16 (10.80 TFLOPS vs 2.961 TFLOPS). Its higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s), higher pixel and texture rates, and superior average benchmark score make it a more versatile and future-proof option. The W5500X is a modern, efficient card built on a 7 nm process, and its launch MSRP of 599 USD reflects its position as a professional workstation part. If you need a general-purpose GPU for modern applications that may not be exclusively Metal-based, the W5500X is the stronger choice. If your workflow is strictly Metal-bound and you want the maximum score in that specific API, the R9 M395X is the one to pick.