AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD Radeon Pro W5700 represent two very different eras of AMD graphics, separated by a generational shift in architecture and process technology. The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the newer Pro W5700, but the M395X still holds relevance in specific legacy contexts. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and practical implications based solely on the provided specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs were tested in only two common benchmark categories, and the results are starkly one-sided. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 scores 89,557 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X manages 33,953 points. This represents a delta of -62.1% for the older card, meaning the Pro W5700 is roughly 2.6 times faster in this compute-oriented API test. The gap is even more pronounced in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro W5700 hits 74,613 points against the M395X’s 17,829 points, a -76.1% delta. That translates to the newer card delivering over four times the OpenCL performance.

The Pro W5700’s advantage is not marginal; it is a complete route. Its FP32 compute rating of 8.663 TFLOPS dwarfs the M395X’s 2.961 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 270.7 GTexel/s is nearly triple the older card’s 92.54 GTexel/s. Pixel rate tells a similar story, with the Pro W5700 achieving 120.3 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s for the M395X. While the head-to-head table only lists two tests, the underlying specifications corroborate the benchmark results across every major throughput metric.

Interestingly, the overall percentile ranking for both cards is identical at 71st percentile among all GPUs. The average benchmark score for the M395X is 25,891, while the Pro W5700 sits at 25,726. This near-parity in aggregate scores is misleading, as it is likely skewed by the different benchmark suites each card was subjected to. The Pro W5700’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, -0.1% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 6700M (25,633, +0.4% delta), while the M395X sits near the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856, +0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (26,011, -0.5% delta). This suggests that in the broader database, the two cards occupy a similar tier of average performance, but the direct comparisons show the Pro W5700 is in a different league entirely.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is the superior performer in every direct benchmark comparison. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 62.1% advantage in Metal and a 76.1% advantage in OpenCL. For any workload that leverages these APIs—which includes most modern creative applications, rendering engines, and compute tasks—the Pro W5700 is the only rational choice. The M395X’s performance is simply too far behind to be competitive in these scenarios.

However, the M395X is not without its niche. Its TDP is just 75 W, compared to the Pro W5700’s 205 W. It uses an MXM Module form factor and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for compact or portable systems where the Pro W5700’s dual-slot, 267 mm length and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power requirement would be impossible to accommodate. The M395X also has no suggested PSU, whereas the Pro W5700 recommends a 550 W power supply.

The Pro W5700 is the pick for desktop workstations that can handle its power and physical footprint. It offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth—a massive upgrade over the M395X’s 8 GB of GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s. The newer card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the bus bandwidth of the M395X’s PCIe 3.0 x16. If you are building or upgrading a system and can physically mount the Pro W5700, the performance data leaves no room for debate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The M395X uses GCN 3.0, a design that debuted in 2015 on the 28 nm process node at TSMC. Its chip, codenamed Amethyst, packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per mm². The Pro W5700, in contrast, is built on RDNA 1.0, a much newer architecture. Its Navi 10 chip uses the 7 nm process, also from TSMC, and crams 10,300 million transistors into a smaller 251 mm² die, achieving a density of 41.0 million per mm². This three-fold increase in density is the primary driver of the performance gap.

The architectures also differ in their compute unit composition. The M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Pro W5700 increases these counts to 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The ROP doubling is particularly significant for pixel throughput, explaining the Pro W5700’s 5.2x advantage in pixel rate. Additionally, RDNA 1.0 introduces a 2:1 FP16 rate, allowing the Pro W5700 to hit 17.33 TFLOPS in FP16, whereas the M395X’s GCN 3.0 architecture only achieves a 1:1 ratio, capping FP16 at 2.961 TFLOPS. This makes the Pro W5700 far more capable for machine learning inference and half-precision compute tasks.

API support also reflects the architectural evolution. The M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro W5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which adds features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views, as well as a newer Vulkan 1.4. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The Pro W5700’s higher DirectX version and newer Vulkan implementation ensure better compatibility with modern games and professional applications.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is the process node: the M395X uses 28 nm, while the Pro W5700 uses 7 nm. This leads to vastly different transistor counts (5,000 million vs 10,300 million) and die sizes (366 mm² vs 251 mm²). Clock speeds also differ significantly. The M395X has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Pro W5700 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1880 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). This memory clock difference, combined with the switch from GDDR5 to GDDR6, results in bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s for the M395X and 448.0 GB/s for the Pro W5700.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The M395X has a TDP of 75 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, and has no power connectors. The Pro W5700 has a TDP of 205 W, a dual-slot design, and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The Pro W5700 also lists a suggested PSU of 550 W, which the M395X does not need. Display outputs differ as well: the M395X’s are “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Pro W5700 offers 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The Pro W5700 is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) and taller at 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the M395X has no listed dimensions.

Release dates and market positioning also differ. The M395X launched on May 4, 2015, and is now end-of-life, with its predecessor being “Solar System” and successor “Polaris Mobile.” The Pro W5700 launched on November 18, 2019, is also end-of-life, and lists its predecessor as “Radeon Pro Vega.” The Pro W5700 has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the M395X has no listed MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is significantly faster, scoring 89,557 points versus the R9 M395X’s 33,953 points, a difference of -62.1% for the older card.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R9 M395X has an average benchmark score of 25,891, while the Pro W5700 has an average score of 25,726. Both rank in the 71st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the R9 M395X support PCIe 4.0?

A: No, it uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro W5700 supports PCIe 4.0 x16.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R9 M395X provides 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5, while the Pro W5700 provides 448.0 GB/s using GDDR6. Both have 8 GB of memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Can the R9 M395X be used in a standard desktop tower?

A: It is an MXM Module, which is a mobile form factor, and its display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent.” It is not designed for standard desktop installation.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The R9 M395X has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors. The Pro W5700 has a TDP of 205 W and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins decisively in every compute and rendering workload. Its FP32 performance of 8.663 TFLOPS, coupled with FP16 capability of 17.33 TFLOPS, makes it suitable for 3D rendering, video editing, scientific simulations, and any CUDA-like compute task that runs on OpenCL or Metal. The 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is critical for large texture sets and high-resolution frame buffers. The dual-slot design and 5x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a natural fit for professional workstations that need multiple 4K displays or VR headsets.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X wins in scenarios where power and space are constrained. Its 75 W TDP and MXM Module form factor allow it to be integrated into laptops or compact all-in-one systems where the Pro W5700 simply will not fit. It also requires no external power connectors, simplifying installation in proprietary chassis. For legacy applications that only need basic OpenGL 4.6 or DirectX 12 (12_0) support, the M395X still functions, but its 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck modern workloads. The data shows the M395X is a relic of its 2015 era, while the Pro W5700, despite being end-of-life, remains a capable professional GPU for a wide range of tasks.