AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 6800M Comparison

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the AMD Radeon RX 6800M is in a completely different performance class than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. Across every shared test, the RX 6800M delivers a victory by a margin of over 200%, making this comparison less a head-to-head contest and more a demonstration of generational progress.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three benchmarks where both GPUs have recorded scores tell a consistent story of overwhelming dominance by the RX 6800M. In the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 6800M scores 113,721 versus the R9 M295X's 33,790, a difference of 236.6%. This is not a marginal improvement; it represents a performance gap of more than threefold, indicating that the newer architecture is handling the Metal API's compute and graphics workloads with vastly greater efficiency.

The Geekbench OpenCL result is even more lopsided. The RX 6800M achieves 87,621 points, while the R9 M295X manages only 22,858. The delta here is 283.3%, the largest margin of the three tests. This suggests that the RX 6800M's compute capabilities, particularly for general-purpose GPU tasks, have scaled far beyond what the older GCN 3.0 design could offer.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern, with the RX 6800M posting 94,766 against the R9 M295X's 29,091, a 225.8% advantage. While this is the smallest relative win for the RX 6800M, it is still a crushing defeat for the older part. For context, the average benchmark score for the RX 6800M is 28,874, while the R9 M295X sits at 28,580. This puts the R9 M295X within a 1% delta of the newer card in overall average scores, but that average is dragged down by the RX 6800M's inclusion of less demanding tests like Passmark DirectX 9 and DirectX 10, where scores are in the low hundreds. In the modern, compute-heavy workloads represented by Geekbench, the RX 6800M is simply untouchable.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, spanning two major design generations. The RX 6800M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, utilizing the Navi 22 chip, and is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the R9 M295X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Amethyst chip, manufactured on a much older 28 nm process.

This process difference is stark. The RX 6800M packs 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The R9 M295X, on the other hand, contains only 5,000 million transistors on a slightly larger 366 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 13.7 million per square millimeter. This nearly 4x difference in density is the primary driver of the RX 6800M's massive performance advantage, allowing it to pack far more compute units and features into the same physical footprint.

The memory subsystems are also from different eras. The RX 6800M features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X has only 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Although the older card has a wider bus, the newer memory technology and higher data rates of the RX 6800M result in more than double the bandwidth, which is critical for feeding the much more powerful GPU core.

Feature support also diverges significantly. The RX 6800M includes 40 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R9 M295X. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). The RX 6800M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the older card is capped at Vulkan 1.2.170. These differences mean the RX 6800M is ready for modern rendering techniques like hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the R9 M295X is locked to older API feature levels.

Where Each One Wins

Given the data, the RX 6800M wins in every measurable category. In the Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan tests, it is the clear victor. This makes it the obvious choice for any application that leverages these modern APIs, including contemporary games, 3D rendering, and compute workloads. Its massive advantage in OpenCL (283.3%) also makes it the superior option for general-purpose GPU computing tasks like video encoding, machine learning inference, and scientific simulations.

The R9 M295X wins nowhere based on the head-to-head data. However, its only potential advantage lies in its physical design. It is an MXM Module with a slot width of "MXM Module," whereas the RX 6800M is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with a slot width of "IGP." This means the R9 M295X was designed for a specific type of laptop with a replaceable MXM graphics card, while the RX 6800M is soldered onto the motherboard. For a user with a legacy laptop that has an MXM slot, the R9 M295X might be a drop-in upgrade path, but this is a compatibility consideration, not a performance one.

The R9 M295X also has a lower TDP of 250 W compared to the RX 6800M's 145 W. This is a surprising reversal, as the newer card is far more powerful yet consumes significantly less power. This efficiency gain is a direct result of the 7 nm process and architectural improvements, making the RX 6800M the superior choice for thin-and-light gaming laptops where thermal headroom is at a premium.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6800M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RX 6800M scores 87,621, which is 283.3% higher than the R9 M295X's 22,858, making it nearly four times faster in this compute-heavy benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M295X support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The R9 M295X has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications. The RX 6800M, in contrast, includes 40 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with only 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Both are listed at the 74th percentile versus all GPUs. However, their average benchmark scores are very close (28,874 for the RX 6800M and 28,580 for the R9 M295X), with the RX 6800M being only 1% higher.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two chips?

A: The RX 6800M is built on a 7 nm process, while the R9 M295X uses a 28 nm process. This results in a transistor density of 51.3M / mm² for the newer card versus 13.7M / mm² for the older one.

Q: Which API versions are supported by each GPU?

A: The RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Radeon RX 6800M is the definitive winner. The data shows a 225% to 283% performance advantage in every shared benchmark, a superior memory subsystem, support for modern features like ray tracing, and a lower power draw. There is no scenario in which the R9 M295X offers better performance. The R9 M295X is a relic of the GCN 3.0 era, and its only possible relevance is as a replacement part in a specific, older MXM-based laptop. For any new system or any workload that values performance, the RX 6800M is the only logical choice. Its 7 nm process node and RDNA 2.0 architecture deliver the kind of generational leap that makes the comparison between these two parts a mismatch of the highest order.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6800M | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | Navi 22 | Amethyst |

| 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 |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 16 Gbps effective | 5 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 160 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 153.0 GPixel/s | 23.14 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 382.4 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.24 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 145 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| 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 |

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

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Solar System |

| Successor | None | Polaris Mobile |