AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M295X and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile and desktop graphics, separated by nearly seven years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the RX 6700 XT winning all three head-to-head tests by substantial margins, yet the R9 M295X holds its own as a legacy part with specific strengths in raw compute scaling relative to its era. This analysis examines where each GPU wins, the architectural chasm between them, and what the numbers mean for real-world workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 XT wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the magnitude of those victories varies dramatically by workload type. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6700 XT scores 130,896 versus the R9 M295X’s 33,790, a delta of -74.2% from the older card’s perspective—meaning the newer GPU is roughly 3.9 times faster. This is the largest margin of the three tests, reflecting the RX 6700 XT’s modern architecture’s ability to leverage Metal’s low-level features, including hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders. For OpenCL, the gap narrows to -48.2%, with scores of 44,152 versus 22,858, indicating that compute-heavy workloads see a 1.9x improvement, still substantial but less dramatic than graphics-bound Metal tasks. Vulkan shows an intermediate result: 93,500 versus 29,091, a -68.9% delta, meaning the RX 6700 XT is 3.2 times faster.

The R9 M295X’s best relative performance comes in OpenCL, where its GCN 3.0 design’s 2,048 shading units and 32 ROPs deliver respectable compute throughput for its age. In absolute terms, however, the RX 6700 XT’s 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs at significantly higher clocks—boost up to 2581 MHz versus the R9 M295X’s unspecified boost—overwhelm the older part. The data shows the RX 6700 XT also wins on memory: 12 GB of GDDR6 at 384.0 GB/s versus 4 GB of GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s, doubling bandwidth and tripling capacity. For texture-heavy workloads, the RX 6700 XT’s 413.0 GTexel/s texture rate is 4.5 times the R9 M295X’s 92.54 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s is 7.1 times higher at 23.14 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf is vast. The R9 M295X uses GCN 3.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die with a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The RX 6700 XT moves to RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm TSMC node, scaling to 17,200 million transistors in a smaller 335 mm² die, achieving 51.3M per mm²—a 3.7x density improvement. This density leap enables the RX 6700 XT to nearly triple the R9 M295X’s FP32 throughput: 13.21 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS, a 4.5x increase. The RX 6700 XT also doubles FP16 performance to 26.43 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the R9 M295X operates at 1:1, meaning FP16 offers no advantage on the older part.

The RX 6700 XT introduces dedicated ray tracing cores—40 of them—which the R9 M295X entirely lacks. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the R9 M295X’s DirectX 12 (12_0), enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, variable rate shading, and mesh shaders. Both support Vulkan, but the RX 6700 XT runs Vulkan 1.4 compared to 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6 on both. Memory technology differs fundamentally: the R9 M295X uses 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6700 XT uses 12 GB GDDR6 on a narrower 192-bit bus, yet the newer memory’s 16 Gbps effective speed delivers 384.0 GB/s—2.4x the bandwidth despite a 25% narrower bus. The RX 6700 XT’s base clock of 2321 MHz and boost of 2581 MHz are drastically higher than the R9 M295X’s unspecified core clocks, and its memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) dwarfs the older card’s 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Power and physical design also diverge. The R9 M295X is a 250 W MXM module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, designed for laptops. The RX 6700 XT is a 230 W dual-slot desktop card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, a 550 W suggested PSU, and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus MXM-B (3.0). The RX 6700 XT measures 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The R9 M295X’s smaller form factor and lower power draw relative to its compute suggest it was optimized for thermal constraints of mobile chassis, whereas the RX 6700 XT prioritizes raw performance within a desktop power envelope.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RX 6700 XT outperforms the R9 M295X in every measurable benchmark, with deltas ranging from -48.2% in OpenCL to -74.2% in Metal. The RX 6700 XT’s average benchmark score of 27,425 places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M295X’s 28,580 average score sits in the 74th percentile—ironically higher, but this reflects the benchmark suite’s composition rather than real-world parity. The R9 M295X’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (delta +0.6%) and AMD Radeon RX 570 (delta -0.6%), indicating it performs near mid-range desktop GPUs from its era. The RX 6700 XT’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (delta 0%) and RTX 3090 (delta -0.5%), showing it competes with high-end desktop parts from the same generation.

For users choosing between these two, the RX 6700 XT is the clear pick for any modern workload requiring ray tracing, high-resolution textures, or Vulkan/Metal performance. Its 3.2x Vulkan advantage and 3.9x Metal advantage make it essential for current gaming and creative applications. The R9 M295X remains relevant only for legacy software or systems locked to MXM form factors, where its 4 GB GDDR5 and GCN 3.0 compute can still handle older titles or compute tasks at reduced settings. The RX 6700 XT’s 12 GB memory capacity is triple the R9 M295X’s, eliminating VRAM bottlenecks in modern games that exceed 4 GB. However, the R9 M295X’s lower transistor count (5,000 million versus 17,200 million) means it draws similar power (250 W versus 230 W) for a fraction of the performance, making the RX 6700 XT more efficient per watt despite its higher absolute TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better Metal performance?

A: The RX 6700 XT scores 130,896 in Geekbench Metal versus the R9 M295X’s 33,790, a 74.2% advantage. This reflects RDNA 2.0’s modern feature set, including 40 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6700 XT in Vulkan?

A: The RX 6700 XT scores 93,500 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 68.9% higher than the R9 M295X’s 29,091. The newer card supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, enabling better driver optimization and hardware features.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 160.0 GB/s. This triples capacity and doubles bandwidth, crucial for modern textures and high-resolution rendering.

Q: Are these GPUs compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The R9 M295X uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is a 250 W MXM module, while the RX 6700 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and is a 267 mm dual-slot desktop card. They target completely different chassis types.

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput?

A: The RX 6700 XT delivers 13.21 TFLOPS FP32, which is 4.5 times the R9 M295X’s 2.961 TFLOPS. For FP16, the RX 6700 XT achieves 26.43 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the R9 M295X is capped at 2.961 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX 6700 XT packs 51.3M transistors per mm² on a 7 nm node, versus 13.7M per mm² on the R9 M295X’s 28 nm node. This 3.7x density improvement allows 17,200 million transistors in a smaller 335 mm² die versus 5,000 million in 366 mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three head-to-head tests paint a consistent picture of RX 6700 XT dominance, but the varying margins reveal workload-specific strengths. The largest victory is in Geekbench Metal, where the RX 6700 XT’s 130,896 score crushes the R9 M295X’s 33,790—a 74.2% delta. This test likely exercises the RX 6700 XT’s ray tracing cores and RDNA 2.0’s optimized Metal driver, which the GCN 3.0 architecture cannot match. The R9 M295X’s lack of dedicated RT hardware means any Metal workload using ray tracing would see even worse relative performance, though the benchmark’s aggregate score already reflects a massive gap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6700 XT scores 93,500 versus 29,091, a 68.9% delta. Vulkan’s lower-level access benefits the newer architecture’s faster clocks (boost 2581 MHz versus unspecified) and higher texture rate (413.0 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s). The 12 GB memory buffer also prevents VRAM spills that could throttle the R9 M295X in memory-intensive scenes. The smallest margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, with the RX 6700 XT at 44,152 versus 22,858, a 48.2% delta. OpenCL compute workloads rely more on raw shader throughput than memory bandwidth or RT features, and while the RX 6700 XT’s 2,560 shading units and 13.21 TFLOPS FP32 still dominate, the R9 M295X’s 2,048 shading units at 2.961 TFLOPS show relatively better scaling for pure compute tasks.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head data are negative for the R9 M295X in all cases, confirming it loses every test. The RX 6700 XT’s win count is 3 out of 3, with no tests where the R9 M295X emerges ahead. This asymmetry is expected given the generational leap: the RX 6700 XT’s nearest rival list includes the RTX 3090 (delta -0.5%), a flagship desktop GPU, while the R9 M295X’s rivals include the RX 570 (delta -0.6%), a budget desktop card from 2017. The average benchmark scores—27,425 for the RX 6700 XT and 28,580 for the R9 M295X—are within 4% of each other, but this metric is skewed by the R9 M295X having only three benchmarks versus eleven for the RX 6700 XT. The RX 6700 XT’s PassMark scores (19,786 in G3D, 9,336 in compute) provide additional confidence in its overall capability, while the R9 M295X lacks these tests entirely.

For users migrating from a system with the R9 M295X to one with the RX 6700 XT, the practical impact is transformative. A game that ran at playable settings on 4 GB VRAM will see massive headroom with 12 GB, and the 3.2x Vulkan improvement means modern titles using Vulkan will render at significantly higher frame rates. The RX 6700 XT’s PCIe 4.0 interface also enables faster asset streaming than MXM-B 3.0, though this benefit is system-dependent. The data shows no scenario where the R9 M295X wins, but its 74th percentile ranking suggests it remains a capable legacy part for its intended mobile niche, provided software does not require features like ray tracing or DirectX 12 Ultimate. The RX 6700 XT, with its 72nd percentile and rival list including the RTX 3090, is the objectively superior choice for any new build or upgrade path.