AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Radeon RX 480 across all three shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 480 scores 51,057 against the R9 M295X's 33,790, a 51.1% advantage. This is the narrowest margin of the three tests, yet still represents a substantial lead in Apple's Metal API performance.

Geekbench OpenCL shows the widest gap between the two cards. The RX 480 posts 37,998 while the R9 M295X manages only 22,858, yielding a 66.2% delta. This result indicates that the RX 480's compute throughput advantage is particularly pronounced in OpenCL workloads, which is consistent with its higher FP32 rating of 5.834 TFLOPS compared to 2.961 TFLOPS for the older part.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RX 480 scores 45,968 versus 29,091 for the R9 M295X, a 58% difference. This positions the RX 480 as the stronger card for modern cross-platform graphics APIs, with Vulkan support version 1.3 against the R9 M295X's 1.2.170.

When placed against the broader database, the RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 33,997. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (average score 33,951, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, delta -0.4%), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, delta -0.5%). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, placing the RX 480 in a tightly contested performance cluster.

The R9 M295X occupies the 74th percentile with an average score of 28,580. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (28,421, delta 0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 570 (28,766, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874, delta -1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, delta -1.4%). The gap between the two cards' average scores is 5,417 points, which translates to roughly a 19% overall advantage for the RX 480 when averaging all benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 emerges as the clear winner in every measurable category. Its three wins across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan demonstrate superiority across diverse workload types. The largest margin comes in OpenCL, where the 66.2% delta suggests the RX 480 is particularly well-suited for general-purpose GPU computing tasks such as scientific simulation, video encoding, and machine learning inference.

Metal performance, with its 51.1% advantage, indicates the RX 480 delivers substantially better performance in Apple's ecosystem, which matters for macOS users running GPU-accelerated applications. The 58% Vulkan delta shows the RX 480 is also the better choice for Linux and Windows users leveraging Vulkan-based games and compute applications.

The R9 M295X has no benchmark category where it outperforms the RX 480. However, its mobile-oriented MXM Module form factor and portable device dependent display outputs suggest it was designed for premium laptop implementations rather than desktop systems. The data shows the R9 M295X remains competitive in its own generation, as evidenced by its nearest rival deltas that are all within 1.4 percentage points of its average score. Still, the architectural and manufacturing advantages of the RX 480 are too substantial to overcome.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip based on GCN 3.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors onto a much larger 366 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 13.7 million transistors per square millimeter.

This manufacturing difference is fundamental. The 14 nm node allows the RX 480 to pack more compute units into a smaller area while consuming less power. The RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W compared to the R9 M295X's 250 W, a 100 W difference. The RX 480 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested power supply. The R9 M295X is an MXM Module with no power connectors, relying on the host laptop's power delivery system.

Compute resources differ as well. The RX 480 features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. These resource differences, combined with clock speeds, explain the performance gap. The RX 480 runs at a base clock of 1120 MHz with a boost clock of 1266 MHz. The R9 M295X has no base or boost clock listed in the database, but its pixel rate of 23.14 GPixel/s and texture rate of 92.54 GTexel/s are far below the RX 480's 40.51 GPixel/s and 182.3 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations also diverge. The RX 480 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The R9 M295X offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus but at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), producing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This 96 GB/s bandwidth advantage for the RX 480 matters in memory-intensive workloads like high-resolution texturing and large data set processing.

The RX 480 supports PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity, while the R9 M295X uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the RX 480 provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the R9 M295X's outputs are portable device dependent. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 480 supports Vulkan 1.3 against the R9 M295X's Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33,997 across all benchmark tests, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X averages 28,580. The RX 480 also holds the 78th percentile ranking versus the R9 M295X's 74th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 480 scores 37,998 against the R9 M295X's 22,858, a 66.2% difference. This is the widest margin across all shared benchmark tests.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 480's memory runs at 2000 MHz versus 1250 MHz for the R9 M295X.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W power supply. The R9 M295X has a 250 W TDP but no power connectors, as it is designed for MXM laptop modules.

Q: Which card supports newer Vulkan features?

A: The RX 480 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 480 scores 45,968 compared to 29,091 for the R9 M295X.

Q: How does the RX 480 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The RX 480's nearest rivals are all within 0.5 percentage points of its average score. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 is 0.1% behind, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is 0.5% behind, the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT is 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S is 0.4% behind.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 480 | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Ellesmere | Amethyst |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | Arctic Islands (RX 400) | Gem System (R9 M200) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1120 MHz | None listed |

| Boost Clock | 1266 MHz | None listed |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 23.14 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.834 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2014-11-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | None listed |