AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT represent two distinct eras of graphics technology, separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The data shows a generational chasm, with the newer RX 6750 XT dominating in modern graphics APIs while the older R9 M295X shows a surprising edge in a single compute-oriented workload. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications for each card based strictly on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisively lopsided in favor of the RX 6750 XT, but not without one notable exception. In the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 6750 XT scores 137,249 against the R9 M295X's 33,790, a massive 75.4% advantage. This is the clearest indicator of the performance gap, as Metal is a low-level API that directly benefits from modern hardware design and driver optimization. The RX 6750 XT's result here is more than four times higher, which translates to a vastly smoother experience in any Metal-based application.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the RX 6750 XT scoring 98,089 versus 29,091 for the R9 M295X, a 70.3% difference. Vulkan, like Metal, is a modern API that leverages asynchronous compute and explicit multi-threading, areas where the newer RDNA 2 architecture is far more efficient. The R9 M295X's GCN 3.0 architecture, while capable of running Vulkan 1.2.170, does not have the hardware-level optimizations to compete, resulting in a score that is roughly a third of the newer card's output.

However, the Geekbench OpenCL result flips the script. Here, the R9 M295X scores 22,858, which is 39.7% higher than the RX 6750 XT's 16,360. This is a significant and unusual victory for the older card. The data suggests that in this specific OpenCL workload, the R9 M295X's architecture, possibly due to its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, handles the compute tasks more efficiently. The RX 6750 XT's FP16 performance is rated at 2:1, meaning it's optimized for half-precision but may not offer the same raw throughput in full-precision compute tasks that this particular OpenCL benchmark likely utilizes. This single win for the R9 M295X shows that raw architectural age doesn't always equate to universal inferiority, especially in legacy compute scenarios.

Beyond these head-to-head tests, the overall benchmark picture reinforces the generational gap. The RX 6750 XT's average benchmark score is 26,011, while the R9 M295X averages 28,580. This is a curious inversion, but it's explained by the fact that the RX 6750 XT's average includes a large number of legacy benchmarks (like the PassMark suite) where it scores poorly, while its modern API scores are exceptionally high. The R9 M295X's average is buoyed by its strong OpenCL result, but its percentile ranking of 74th versus the RX 6750 XT's 71st is within a narrow margin. The real story is in the modern API tests, where the RX 6750 XT is unequivocally superior.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural differences explain the performance divergence. The R9 M295X is built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older node is reflected in its transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter, with a total of 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. In contrast, the RX 6750 XT uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC. This newer process allows for a far higher transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter, packing 17,200 million transistors onto a smaller 335 mm² die. This is a fundamental shift in efficiency and capability.

The memory subsystems are also from different generations. The R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6750 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, but its faster 18 Gbps effective memory clock results in a significantly higher bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. This nearly 2.7x increase in bandwidth is crucial for high-resolution textures and modern game engines. The RX 6750 XT also has a larger memory pool, which is essential for modern titles that can exceed 4 GB of VRAM usage.

The compute units tell a similar story of progress. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In contrast, the RX 6750 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This translates to a massive increase in pixel and texture rates: the RX 6750 XT achieves 166.4 GPixel/s and 416.0 GTexel/s, compared to the R9 M295X's 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is equally divergent, with the RX 6750 XT offering 13.31 TFLOPS against the R9 M295X's 2.961 TFLOPS. The RX 6750 XT also introduces 40 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older card.

Feature support also differs significantly. The RX 6750 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer card also includes a hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability, which is a key feature for modern AAA games. The R9 M295X is an MXM module with a 250 W TDP, designed for laptops, while the RX 6750 XT is a dual-slot desktop card with a 600 W suggested PSU and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors. The RX 6750 XT's launch MSRP was 549 USD, and it has a base clock of 2150 MHz with a boost clock of 2600 MHz, while the R9 M295X's clock speeds are not specified in the data.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards is clear for almost any modern use case. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the definitive winner for gaming and modern content creation. The data shows it is 75.4% ahead in Geekbench Metal and 70.3% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan, which are the APIs used by the vast majority of current games and professional applications. Its 12 GB of VRAM, ray tracing cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate make it future-proof for several more years, while the R9 M295X is limited by its 4 GB VRAM and lack of modern feature support.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is only preferable in a very specific scenario: workloads that rely heavily on full-precision (FP32) compute via the OpenCL API. Its 39.7% advantage in that test is real and indicates a niche where its older architecture is more efficient. However, this advantage is narrow. For a user whose primary applications are OpenCL compute tasks, the R9 M295X could be a more capable choice, but this is a rare and specialized scenario. In any other context, the RX 6750 XT is the superior product by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in modern gaming APIs like Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is substantially faster. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, it scored 98,089 compared to the R9 M295X's 29,091, a 70.3% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the older R9 M295X wins?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R9 M295X scored 22,858, which is 39.7% higher than the RX 6750 XT's 16,360, indicating better performance in that specific compute workload.

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two cards?

A: The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with a significantly higher 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 6750 XT support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RX 6750 XT has 40 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature that the R9 M295X does not have. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the R9 M295X only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do the architectures differ in terms of manufacturing process?

A: The R9 M295X uses the older GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the RX 6750 XT uses the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm process. The newer process allows for a much higher transistor density of 51.3M / mm² versus 13.7M / mm².

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R9 M295X has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 28,580 compared to the RX 6750 XT's 26,011, but this is heavily influenced by the RX 6750 XT's poor showing in legacy PassMark tests and does not reflect its dominance in modern APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the clear winner for:

• Modern Gaming: With a 75.4% lead in Metal and 70.3% lead in Vulkan, it provides dramatically higher frame rates in current game titles. Its 12 GB VRAM capacity and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate make it suitable for high-resolution textures and ray-traced effects.
• Content Creation on Modern APIs: Applications that use Metal or Vulkan will see massive performance gains. The card's high texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s are essential for high-resolution rendering.
• Future-Proofing: The RX 6750 XT's feature set (ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, PCIe 4.0) ensures it will remain relevant for a longer period than an 8-year-old mobile GPU.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is the winner only for:

• Legacy OpenCL Compute: Its 39.7% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test suggests it is more efficient at certain full-precision (FP32) compute tasks. This could be relevant for specific scientific, engineering, or financial applications that rely on OpenCL.
• A Niche of Older Software: For applications that are built around OpenCL and do not benefit from the newer features of RDNA 2, the R9 M295X may still hold a performance edge, despite its much older architecture and lower overall specs.