AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD Radeon R9 M295X and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is a one-sided affair. The RX 6600 XT wins all three recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 59.8% to 71.6%. The R9 M295X, a mobile part from 2014, posts an average benchmark score of 28580, which places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 6600 XT, despite being in the 70th percentile overall, records an average score of 24442, yet its raw compute and modern feature set make it the clear choice for any current workload.

The R9 M295X is an end-of-life product with a 28 nm process, 5,000 million transistors, and a 250 W TDP. It is a mobile MXM module, meaning it is not a drop-in desktop solution. The RX 6600 XT, also end-of-life, is a desktop dual-slot card with a 160 W TDP, a 7 nm process, and 11,060 million transistors. It supports PCIe 4.0 x8, has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and includes 32 ray tracing cores.

For a user building or upgrading a desktop system, the RX 6600 XT is the only sensible pick. For someone maintaining a legacy mobile workstation, the R9 M295X is the only option that fits. But for any modern application, benchmark results indicate the RX 6600 XT is decisively faster. The R9 M295X should be reserved for retro or compatibility purposes, while the RX 6600 XT is a capable modern card for 1080p gaming and general compute.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different eras of AMD design. The R9 M295X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. Its die measures 366 mm² and packs 5,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The chip is codenamed Amethyst and belongs to the R9 M200 series.

The RX 6600 XT uses RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process. Its die is smaller at 237 mm², yet it contains 11,060 million transistors, pushing density to 46.7 million per square millimeter. That is a massive jump in density, which explains how the newer card achieves far higher performance at a lower power draw.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6600 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but its memory clock runs at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective, resulting in 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the newer memory technology provides 60% more bandwidth.

Both cards have 2048 shading units and 128 texture mapping units. The R9 M295X has 32 ROPs, while the RX 6600 XT has 64 ROPs. The newer card also features 32 ray tracing cores, something the older GCN part lacks entirely. The RX 6600 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M295X only reaches DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support also differs: the R9 M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 6600 XT supports Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the R9 M295X has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The RX 6600 XT has a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. The R9 M295X memory runs at 1250 MHz or 5 Gbps effective.

Power and physical design differ as well. The R9 M295X is an MXM module with a 250 W TDP and no power connectors, as it depends on the host system. The RX 6600 XT is a dual-slot card measuring 190 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. It uses a single 8-pin power connector and has a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M295X does not win any of the three recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its best relative showing is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 29091 against the RX 6600 XT's 72417, a delta of 59.8%. It is closest in that test, but still far behind.

The RX 6600 XT wins every recorded benchmark. Its biggest victory is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 80503 versus 22858, a 71.6% advantage. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 88720 versus 33790, a 61.9% lead. The RX 6600 XT also has a much higher pixel rate at 165.7 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 41 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 10.60 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 21.21 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS.

For gaming and DirectX workloads, the RX 6600 XT is the clear winner. It supports ray tracing, has double the ROPs, and offers more memory. For compute tasks, the RX 6600 XT's FP32 and FP16 throughput is far superior. The R9 M295X does not have any workload where it comes out ahead in the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 6600 XT scores 88720, while the R9 M295X scores 33790. The RX 6600 XT leads by 61.9%.

Q: Does the R9 M295X support ray tracing?

A: No. The R9 M295X has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6600 XT has 32 ray tracing cores.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 6600 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W. The RX 6600 XT has a TDP of 160 W.

Q: Which card has higher transistor density?

A: The RX 6600 XT has 46.7 million transistors per mm², compared to 13.7 million per mm² for the R9 M295X.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The RX 6600 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M295X only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the RX 6600 XT. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6600 XT records 88720 against 33790, a delta of 61.9%. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600 XT scores 80503 against 22858, a delta of 71.6%, the largest gap in the comparison. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6600 XT scores 72417 against 29091, a delta of 59.8%, the smallest gap.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the R9 M295X sits close to a cluster of mid-range GPUs. Its average score of 28580 is 0.6% above the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 28874, 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 570 28874, 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 570 28766, 1% below the AMD Radeon RX 6800M 28874, and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 470 28996. The RX 6600 XT, by contrast, sits near a different set of rivals: its average score of 24442 is 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 24277, 0.8% below the Intel Arc A350M 24647, 0.8% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 24236, and 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 24170.

The R9 M295X, despite its higher average score than the RX 6600 XT, loses every head-to-head test. This is because the benchmark suites differ: the R9 M295X only has Geekbench entries, while the RX 6600 XT has a broader set including 3DMark, PassMark, and Geekbench. The RX 6600 XT's Geekbench scores are dramatically higher, and its PassMark G3D score of 16461 and PassMark GPU Compute score of 7520 reinforce its dominance.

The data indicates that the RX 6600 XT is not just faster in raw compute; it is also more efficient. It delivers 10.60 TFLOPS of FP32 at 160 W, while the R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS at 250 W. The RX 6600 XT also has a higher pixel rate (165.7 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s) and texture rate (331.4 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s).

In summary, the RX 6600 XT wins every recorded benchmark, offers modern features like ray tracing, and does so at a lower power draw. The R9 M295X is an older mobile part that cannot compete in any metric measured in this database.