AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon R9 M295X and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 is defined by two shared tests, both of which result in decisive victories for the newer RX 9070. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the RX 9070 scores 131,539 against the R9 M295X's 22,858. This represents a delta of -82.6%, meaning the RX 9070 is approximately 4.75 times faster in raw compute throughput. The margin is so large that the older mobile GPU's score appears in a different performance class entirely.

The second shared benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar but slightly narrower gap. The RX 9070 records 58,705 points, while the R9 M295X manages 29,091. The delta here is -50.4%, meaning the RX 9070 more than doubles the Vulkan performance of the R9 M295X. For gaming workloads that rely on modern graphics APIs, this gap translates to a substantial real-world advantage in frame rates and rendering complexity.

The recorded data shows zero benchmark wins for the R9 M295X across the tests both products share. The RX 9070 wins both comparisons, giving it a clean 2-0 record in the head-to-head table. When contextualized against their respective peer groups, the performance positioning becomes clearer. The R9 M295X sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 28,580. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 at 28,421 (0.6% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 570 at 28,766 (0.6% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (1% faster). This places the R9 M295X in a competitive mid-range position for its era, but that era is firmly in the past.

The RX 9070, by contrast, holds the 69th percentile with an average score of 23,877. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z at 23,736 (0.6% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6800S at 24,063 (0.8% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile at 23,628 (1.1% slower). The RX 9070's lower percentile ranking despite vastly superior raw scores in the shared tests is explained by its broader benchmark profile, which includes several Passmark subtests that drag down its average. The Passmark DirectX 12 score of 74 and DirectX 10 score of 141 are particularly low, likely reflecting driver or workload characteristics rather than raw hardware capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans a decade of semiconductor evolution. The R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The RX 9070 uses the Navi 48 chip based on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer chip contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, achieving a density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The density improvement is roughly 11-fold, allowing over ten times more transistors in nearly the same physical footprint.

Memory configurations differ markedly. The R9 M295X comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective memory clock of 5 Gbps. The RX 9070 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256 bit bus width, but pushes bandwidth to 644.6 GB/s with an effective memory clock of 20.1 Gbps. Four times the capacity and roughly four times the bandwidth represent a fundamental shift in what workloads can be handled locally without spilling to system memory.

Compute resources reveal the scale of evolution. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The RX 9070 nearly doubles shading units to 3,584, nearly doubles TMUs to 224, and quadruples ROPs to 128. The RX 9070 also introduces 56 ray tracing cores, a feature class entirely absent from the R9 M295X. Pixel rate jumps from 23.14 GPixel/s to 322.6 GPixel/s, while texture rate climbs from 92.54 GTexel/s to 564.5 GTexel/s. Floating point performance scales from 2.961 TFLOPS to 36.13 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, with both GPUs maintaining a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

Power characteristics invert expectations. The R9 M295X consumes 250 W as a mobile MXM module, while the RX 9070 draws 220 W as a dual-slot desktop card. The newer GPU delivers over ten times the compute throughput while consuming 12% less power, a signal of the efficiency gains of the 4 nm process. The R9 M295X uses no external power connectors due to its MXM form factor, while the RX 9070 requires two 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply. The bus interface also advances from MXM-B (3.0) to PCIe 5.0 x16, offering substantially greater host bandwidth. API support progresses from DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170 on the R9 M295X to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 on the RX 9070. Display outputs shift from portable-device-dependent connections to 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 dominates in virtually every measurable performance category. Its OpenCL score of 131,539 places it 82.6% ahead of the R9 M295X, which is the defining compute advantage. For applications that leverage OpenCL for GPU compute, such as video encoding, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference, the RX 9070 is in a different league. The Vulkan result reinforces this, with the RX 9070 finishing 50.4% ahead, making it the clear choice for modern game engines that use Vulkan for rendering. The 56 ray tracing cores give it hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a capability the R9 M295X lacks entirely.

The R9 M295X retains relevance only in legacy contexts. Its 28,580 average benchmark score places it in the 74th percentile, meaning it outperforms a majority of all GPUs ever tested, including some newer budget parts. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 570, scores 28,766 (0.6% faster), which shows the R9 M295X can still trade blows with entry-level desktop GPUs from several generations later. For systems that require an MXM module form factor, it remains one of the few high-performance options, as the RX 9070's dual-slot desktop design cannot physically replace it. The R9 M295X also has lower memory requirements, which can be an advantage in older software that does not benefit from or properly utilize 16 GB of VRAM.

The RX 9070's Passmark results paint a more nuanced picture. Its Passmark G3D score of 25,381 is strong, but the DirectX 9 score of 343 and DirectX 10 score of 141 suggest that legacy DirectX workloads do not scale with the hardware. The DirectX 12 score of 74 is notably low, which is surprising given the architecture's modern design. These figures likely reflect specific driver paths or test harness limitations rather than true gaming performance, but they do indicate that the RX 9070 is optimized for current-generation APIs and workloads, not backward compatibility. The R9 M295X, with its older GCN architecture, may execute legacy DirectX workloads more proportionally to its raw compute, though the absolute scores remain far below the RX 9070's modern results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The R9 M295X has a higher average benchmark score of 28,580 compared to the RX 9070's 23,877, despite the RX 9070 winning all shared head-to-head tests. This discrepancy arises because the RX 9070's benchmark profile includes several low Passmark subtests that reduce its average.

Q: How much faster is the RX 9070 in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 9070 scores 131,539 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 22,858 for the R9 M295X, a delta of -82.6%, meaning the RX 9070 is roughly 4.75 times faster.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RX 9070 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. Both use a 256 bit bus, but the RX 9070's bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s is roughly four times the R9 M295X's 160.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the R9 M295X support ray tracing?

A: No, the R9 M295X has no ray tracing cores. The RX 9070 includes 56 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, while the RX 9070 has a TDP of 220 W. The RX 9070 delivers significantly higher performance while consuming less power.

Q: Which GPU is still in production?

A: The R9 M295X is marked as end-of-life, while the RX 9070 is listed as active production status.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | AMD Radeon RX 9070 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Chip | Amethyst | Navi 48 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 53,900 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 357 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 151.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 1330 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 2520 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2070 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 644.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 128 | 224 |

| ROPs | 32 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 56 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 322.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 564.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.961 TFLOPS | 36.13 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | 36.13 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 220 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-11-22 | 2025-03-05 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Navi III |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | N/A |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 549 USD |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 74 | 69 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 28580 | 23877 |