AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 6700M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon R9 M295X and the AMD Radeon RX 6700M across all three shared benchmark tests. The RX 6700M wins every head-to-head comparison, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6700M scores 91,911 against the R9 M295X's 33,790. This represents a 63.2% advantage for the newer card. The Metal API, which is Apple's graphics interface, shows the RX 6700M delivering roughly 2.7 times the raw score of its predecessor.

Geekbench OpenCL results widen the gap further. The RX 6700M posts 77,666, while the R9 M295X manages only 22,858. The delta here is 70.6%, meaning the RX 6700M outperforms the older GPU by a factor of approximately 3.4. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, and this result suggests the RDNA 2 architecture handles general-purpose GPU workloads far more efficiently than the older GCN 3.0 design.

The Vulkan benchmark shows a similar pattern. The RX 6700M reaches 90,816, compared to the R9 M295X's 29,091. The 68% delta indicates the RX 6700M delivers about 3.1 times the performance in this modern graphics API. Vulkan is known for lower overhead and better multi-threading, and the data confirms the RX 6700M benefits significantly from these improvements.

Across all three shared tests, the RX 6700M's average advantage is roughly 67%. The R9 M295X has zero wins in head-to-head comparisons, while the RX 6700M claims all three.

# Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700M is the clear winner in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded scores. Its strongest relative performance comes in OpenCL, where the 70.6% delta represents the largest margin. This suggests the RX 6700M is particularly well-suited for compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, scientific simulation, and machine learning inference.

In Vulkan, the RX 6700M shows a 68% lead. Modern games that use Vulkan for cross-platform compatibility will see substantial performance improvements. The Metal benchmark, with a 63.2% delta, is the closest contest between the two, but the RX 6700M still achieves more than double the score.

The R9 M295X has no benchmark categories where it outperforms the RX 6700M. Its only potential advantage lies in its position within the broader database: it sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6700M sits at the 71st percentile. This counterintuitive result reflects the different benchmark distributions each card participates in, as the R9 M295X's average score of 28,580 is actually higher than the RX 6700M's average of 25,633. However, this average includes different test sets, so it does not indicate real-world superiority.

For users prioritizing modern API support and raw compute throughput, the RX 6700M is the only rational choice based on the measured data.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The R9 M295X uses GCN 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Amethyst, fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC. The RX 6700M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on Navi 22, built on a 7 nm process, also by TSMC.

The process node improvement is dramatic. The R9 M295X packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The RX 6700M fits 17,200 million transistors into a slightly smaller 335 mm² die, achieving a density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. This represents nearly a 4-fold increase in transistor density, enabling far more complex logic in a similar physical footprint.

Shader resources differ substantially. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The RX 6700M increases this to 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The ROP count doubling is particularly significant for pixel fill rates, which the specs confirm: the RX 6700M achieves 153.6 GPixel/s versus the R9 M295X's 23.14 GPixel/s.

The RX 6700M also introduces 36 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GCN 3.0 design. This enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported titles, something the R9 M295X cannot do.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The R9 M295X lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RX 6700M has a base clock of 1489 MHz, a game clock of 2300 MHz, and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Its memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory specifications also favor the newer card. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6700M offers 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, achieving 320.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the faster GDDR6 memory doubles the bandwidth.

Compute performance reflects the architectural leap. The R9 M295X provides 2.961 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and matches that for FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RX 6700M delivers 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.12 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). That is roughly 3.7 times the FP32 throughput and 7.5 times the FP16 throughput.

Power efficiency is starkly different. The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, while the RX 6700M draws only 135 W. The newer card delivers vastly more performance while consuming nearly half the power.

API support also advances. The R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6700M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 12_2 feature level enables mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other next-gen features.

The bus interface differs as well: the R9 M295X uses MXM-B (3.0) and mounts as an MXM Module, while the RX 6700M is an IGP form factor using PCIe 4.0 x16.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The R9 M295X has a higher average benchmark score of 28,580 compared to the RX 6700M's 25,633, but this reflects different test sets. In direct head-to-head comparisons, the RX 6700M wins all three tests by 63% to 70%.

Q: Does the RX 6700M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6700M includes 36 ray tracing cores. The R9 M295X has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 6700M has 320.0 GB/s, double the R9 M295X's 160.0 GB/s, despite using a narrower 160-bit bus versus 256-bit.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The RX 6700M has 17,200 million transistors, while the R9 M295X has 5,000 million. The RX 6700M also achieves a higher density at 51.3M per mm² versus 13.7M per mm².

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The RX 6700M has a TDP of 135 W, nearly half the R9 M295X's 250 W.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The R9 M295X was released in November 2014, and the RX 6700M in May 2021.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6700M outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M295X by margins between 63.2% and 70.6% across all shared tests. No recorded metric favors the older card.

For users on modern workloads using Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the RX 6700M is the only sensible choice. Its 10 GB GDDR6 memory, 320 GB/s bandwidth, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate make it far more capable for current and upcoming software. The ray tracing cores add a capability the R9 M295X simply lacks.

The R9 M295X retains one statistical advantage: its 74th percentile ranking versus the RX 6700M's 71st, and its higher average score of 28,580 versus 25,633. However, these figures aggregate different benchmark suites and do not reflect direct performance. In any test where both cards have been measured, the RX 6700M wins decisively.

The architecture gap explains the results. GCN 3.0 on 28 nm is a 2014 design, while RDNA 2.0 on 7 nm is a 2021 design. The newer card has more than triple the transistor count, nearly quadruple the transistor density, more than double the ROPs, and over 3.7 times the FP32 throughput. It achieves all this at 135 W versus 250 W.

Given the data, the RX 6700M is the superior GPU for every measured workload. The R9 M295X should only be considered in legacy systems where its specific MXM form factor is required and performance expectations are modest.

# Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | Amethyst | Navi 22 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

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

| Die size | 366 mm² | 335 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.7M / mm² | 51.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | None recorded | 1489 MHz |

| Boost clock | None recorded | 2400 MHz |

| Game clock | None recorded | 2300 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 10 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 2304 |

| Texture mapping units | 128 | 144 |

| Render output units | 32 | 64 |

| Ray tracing cores | None | 36 |

| Pixel rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 153.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 345.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 2.961 TFLOPS | 11.06 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 135 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

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

| Vulkan support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2014-11-22 | 2021-05-30 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Polaris Mobile |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | None recorded |

| Production status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 74 | 71 |

| Average benchmark score | 28,580 | 25,633 |