AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 570 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 570 and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X represent two distinct generations of graphics technology, one a desktop part from the Polaris family and the other a mobile module from the earlier Gem System. While both cards share the same 4 GB GDDR5 memory configuration and a 256-bit bus, the benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap, with the RX 570 leading in every single head-to-head test. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close—28766 for the RX 570 and 28580 for the M295X—but this overall similarity masks the fact that the RX 570 wins the three direct comparisons by margins ranging from 16.5% to 47%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 570 has an average benchmark score of 28766, which is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X’s score of 28580. This places the RX 570 just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800M and 0.8% behind the RX 470, while the M295X trails the RX 6800M by 1% and the RX 470 by 1.4%.

Q: How much faster is the RX 570 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The RX 570 scores 42752 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 47% higher than the M295X’s score of 29091. This is the largest performance delta between the two cards across any test.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both the RX 570 and the R9 M295X support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the RX 570 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the M295X is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the difference in their manufacturing process?

A: The RX 570 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the M295X uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. This results in a significant difference in die size: 232 mm² for the RX 570 versus 366 mm² for the M295X.

Q: Which card has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The RX 570 has a texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s, which is substantially higher than the M295X’s 92.54 GTexel/s. This reflects the RX 570’s higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency.

Q: Is the R9 M295X a desktop card?

A: No, the R9 M295X is designed as an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, making it a mobile solution. In contrast, the RX 570 is a dual-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RX 570 is based on the Polaris 20 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The M295X, on the other hand, uses the Amethyst chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink allows the RX 570 to pack 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.6M / mm². The M295X contains 5,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 366 mm² die, yielding a density of only 13.7M / mm².

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 570 has a base clock of 1168 MHz and a boost clock of 1244 MHz, while the M295X has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks also differ, with the RX 570 running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the M295X at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This leads to a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s for the RX 570 versus 160.0 GB/s for the M295X.

Both cards share the same core configuration: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the RX 570’s higher clocks translate into superior raw throughput. The pixel rate for the RX 570 is 39.81 GPixel/s compared to 23.14 GPixel/s for the M295X. Similarly, the FP32 compute is 5.095 TFLOPS for the RX 570 versus 2.961 TFLOPS for the M295X, with both offering a 1:1 FP16 ratio.

The RX 570 is a desktop part with a 150 W TDP, requiring a 450 W PSU and a single 6-pin power connector. The M295X is a mobile MXM module with a 250 W TDP and no standard power connectors, relying on the host device. The RX 570 also offers modern display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the M295X’s outputs are dependent on the portable device.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 570 is the superior performer in every measurable benchmark. It wins all three head-to-head comparisons against the R9 M295X, with margins of 16.5% in Metal, 40.4% in OpenCL, and 47% in Vulkan. The RX 570 also holds a higher average benchmark score (28766 vs 28580) and a better position relative to shared rivals—it sits 0.8% behind the RX 470, while the M295X is 1.4% behind that same card.

For users deciding between these two, the choice depends heavily on the form factor. The RX 570 is a desktop card with a standard PCIe interface, making it suitable for building or upgrading a desktop rig. The M295X, being an MXM module, is intended for laptops or all-in-one systems where upgradeability is limited. If you have the option to choose a desktop system, the RX 570 is clearly the better pick due to its superior performance and lower TDP of 150 W versus 250 W.

However, the M295X is not without merit. It holds its own in the average benchmark score, only 0.7% behind the RX 570, and it was released earlier, on 2014-11-22, compared to the RX 570’s 2017-04-17. For a mobile user locked into an MXM platform, the M295X remains a capable part, but the data suggests it is outclassed by the newer Polaris architecture in all compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is the most fundamental difference: 14 nm for the RX 570 versus 28 nm for the M295X. This leads to a die size of 232 mm² for the RX 570 and 366 mm² for the M295X, with transistor counts of 5,700 million and 5,000 million, respectively. Transistor density is nearly double on the RX 570 at 24.6M / mm² versus 13.7M / mm².

Clock speeds are entirely in the RX 570’s favor. The RX 570 has a 1168 MHz base and 1244 MHz boost, while the M295X has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory operates at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on the RX 570 versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the M295X, resulting in bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Both cards have 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, and both feature 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The compute rates diverge sharply: pixel rate is 39.81 GPixel/s for the RX 570 versus 23.14 GPixel/s for the M295X, and texture rate is 159.2 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 5.095 TFLOPS for the RX 570 versus 2.961 TFLOPS for the M295X.

Power and physical design differ completely. The RX 570 has a 150 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires a 450 W PSU, and uses a 1x 6-pin power connector. The M295X has a 250 W TDP, is an MXM Module, has no power connectors, and offers no suggested PSU. The RX 570 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, while the M295X uses MXM-B (3.0) with no listed dimensions. Display outputs are modern on the RX 570 (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) but portable-device-dependent on the M295X. The RX 570 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the M295X supports 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided, with the RX 570 winning all three tests. The largest margin comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 570 scores 42752 against the M295X’s 29091, a delta of 47%. This suggests a major advantage in modern graphics APIs, likely driven by the newer GCN 4.0 architecture and higher memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 570 achieves 32084 versus 22858 for the M295X, a 40.4% lead. This compute-heavy workload reflects the RX 570’s FP32 throughput of 5.095 TFLOPS, which is 72% higher than the M295X’s 2.961 TFLOPS. The gap is slightly smaller in Geekbench Metal, where the RX 570 scores 39349 against 33790, a 16.5% advantage.

The average benchmark scores are much closer, with the RX 570 at 28766 and the M295X at 28580, a difference of only 0.7%. This is because the RX 570’s average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 880, which drags its average down relative to its strong Geekbench results. The M295X lacks a 3DMark score entirely, so its average is based solely on Geekbench tests.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 570 wins in every head-to-head benchmark, making it the clear choice for performance-focused users. Its strongest areas are Vulkan and OpenCL, where it leads by 47% and 40.4%, respectively. These workloads are common in gaming and compute applications, so the RX 570 is better suited for those tasks. Its lower TDP of 150 W also makes it more power-efficient, and its modern display outputs support up to three DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

The M295X does not win any direct benchmarks, but it has a few indirect advantages. It shares the same 74th percentile ranking among all GPUs, indicating it is not a slouch in the broader market. Its MXM form factor makes it the only option for systems that require a mobile module, and its earlier release date means it may be the only choice for older portable devices. In terms of raw performance, however, the data shows no scenario where the M295X outperforms the RX 570.

For users prioritizing raw speed, the RX 570 is the definitive winner. For those constrained by a mobile MXM platform, the M295X remains a viable, though slower, alternative. The 16.5% to 47% performance deltas are too large to ignore, and the RX 570’s architectural advantages—14 nm process, higher clocks, and greater bandwidth—translate directly into better real-world results.