AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 is in a different performance class than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. Across every shared test, the RX 6700 delivers a commanding victory, with margins ranging from roughly 189% to 328%. While the R9 M295X holds its own in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, the RX 6700 sits just one percentile higher at 75, but that narrow percentile gap masks a massive raw performance chasm. The RX 6700’s average benchmark score of 30,433 places it among modern desktop contenders, while the R9 M295X’s 28,580 average reflects its older mobile-oriented design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RX 6700 scores 97,841 against the R9 M295X’s 22,858. That is a 328% advantage, meaning the RX 6700 delivers more than four times the compute throughput in this API. The gap is so wide that it suggests not just a generational leap, but a fundamental architectural superiority in raw parallel computation. For any workload that scales with OpenCL, the RX 6700 is not merely faster; it is in a different universe.

The Geekbench Metal test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The RX 6700 posts 122,223, while the R9 M295X manages 33,790 — a 261.7% delta. This is particularly notable because Metal is Apple’s graphics API, and the R9 M295X was often found in high-end iMacs and MacBook Pros. The data shows that even in the R9 M295X’s home turf, the RX 6700 obliterates it. The RX 6700’s Metal score is more than 3.6 times higher, which would translate to dramatically smoother frame rates in Metal-based games and pro apps.

The Vulkan result is the closest of the three, but "closest" is relative. The RX 6700 scores 83,974, versus 29,091 for the R9 M295X, yielding a 188.7% advantage. While this is the smallest percentage gap of the trio, it still represents nearly triple the performance. The RX 6700’s Vulkan 1.4 support versus the R9 M295X’s Vulkan 1.2.170 also means the newer card can access more modern rendering features, though the raw score gap alone is decisive.

Across all three head-to-head benchmarks, the RX 6700 wins 3-0. There is no test in the shared set where the R9 M295X comes out ahead. The deltas are so large that they dwarf the differences seen in the nearest-rival comparisons. For context, the RX 6700’s closest rival, the NVIDIA CMP 70HX, is only 0.1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 is 1.1% behind — those are near-ties. The R9 M295X’s closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, is 0.6% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 570 is 0.6% behind. These rival deltas are in the single digits, while the head-to-head deltas are in the hundreds. This is not a close contest; it is a rout.

The Verdict

The verdict is simple: choose the AMD Radeon RX 6700 unless you are constrained by a specific legacy form factor. The data shows the RX 6700 wins every single benchmark against the R9 M295X by a margin of at least 188.7%. Its 75th percentile ranking versus the R9 M295X’s 74th might suggest near-parity, but that is misleading — the percentile is a global ranking, and the R9 M295X’s position is buoyed by its inclusion in high-end laptops of its era, not by competitive performance against modern parts.

The RX 6700 is the clear pick for anyone building or upgrading a desktop system. It delivers 11.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 320 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 10 GB of GDDR6 memory. These are not incremental gains; they are generational leaps. The R9 M295X, with its 2.961 TFLOPS and 160 GB/s bandwidth, is a product of the 28 nm era, and it shows in every metric.

However, there is one niche where the R9 M295X remains relevant: the MXM form factor. The R9 M295X is an MXM-B (3.0) module, meaning it was designed for upgradeable laptops and all-in-one systems. If you own a machine that accepts MXM modules and cannot accept a desktop PCIe card, the R9 M295X might be your only option from this pairing. But that is a hardware compatibility argument, not a performance one. In pure performance terms, the RX 6700 wins without qualification.

For users who prioritize compute workloads, the RX 6700’s 328% OpenCL lead is the deciding factor. For gamers using Metal or Vulkan, the 261.7% and 188.7% leads respectively are equally decisive. There is no scenario in the data where the R9 M295X is the better performer.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is as wide as the performance gap. The RX 6700 uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 17,200 million transistors onto a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3 million per mm². In contrast, the R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It houses 5,000 million transistors on a slightly larger 366 mm² die, but with a much lower density of 13.7 million per mm².

The process node difference alone — 7 nm versus 28 nm — explains much of the efficiency and clock speed disparity. The RX 6700 boosts to 2450 MHz, while the R9 M295X’s clocks are not even listed in the data, a sign that they were low enough to be unremarkable. The RX 6700 also features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores, a hardware capability entirely absent from the R9 M295X. This means the RX 6700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) without ray tracing or mesh shaders.

Memory architecture is another stark differentiator. The RX 6700 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but only achieves 160 GB/s. The RX 6700’s narrower bus is more than compensated by its faster memory technology and higher effective clock speed of 16 Gbps versus 5 Gbps. In terms of compute resources, the RX 6700 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The R9 M295X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and just 32 ROPs. The RX 6700’s pixel rate of 156.8 GPixel/s is nearly seven times the R9 M295X’s 23.14 GPixel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 delivers 11.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS. The RX 6700 is 281% faster in raw single-precision compute.

Q: Does the RX 6700 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RX 6700 includes 36 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The R9 M295X has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6700 has 320 GB/s of bandwidth from 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus. The R9 M295X has 160 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 6700 offers exactly double the bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RX 6700 has a TDP of 175 W and requires a 450 W power supply with a single 8-pin connector. The R9 M295X has a higher TDP of 250 W, but uses an MXM module with no external power connectors, making it suitable only for specialized laptop or all-in-one systems.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The RX 6700 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 6700 scores 83,974 versus 29,091 for the R9 M295X, a 188.7% advantage.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The RX 6700 is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the R9 M295X is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. This node difference contributes to the RX 6700’s higher transistor density of 51.3M per mm² versus 13.7M per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins in every measurable category. It wins in compute-heavy workloads, as shown by its 328% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. It wins in graphics API performance, with a 261.7% lead in Metal and a 188.7% lead in Vulkan. It wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 320 GB/s versus 160 GB/s. It wins in pixel throughput, with 156.8 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s. It wins in texture fill rate, with 352.8 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. It wins in feature support, offering ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and PCIe 4.0 x16 connectivity. The RX 6700 is the choice for any desktop user who wants modern performance.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in exactly one practical category: form factor compatibility. As an MXM-B (3.0) module with no external power connectors, it is the only option here for portable or proprietary systems that accept MXM modules. It also has a lower TDP in absolute terms of power delivery complexity — though its 250 W TDP is actually higher than the RX 6700’s 175 W, the MXM interface means it does not require a separate PSU connection. For anyone with an upgradeable laptop or an all-in-one from the mid-2010s, the R9 M295X is the only choice from this pairing, despite its massive performance deficit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6700 | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 17,200 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 335 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.3M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Boost Clock | 2450 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | 10 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 160 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 156.8 GPixel/s | 23.14 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 352.8 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 11.29 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 22.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 175 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |