AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

# Intel Arc A370M vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X

The Intel Arc A370M and AMD Radeon R9 M295X represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them within striking distance of each other. The Arc A370M averages 29,175 points across its tested workloads, while the R9 M295X averages 28,580 points — a gap of roughly 2.1% in favor of Intel. Both sit at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite being separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The head-to-head results, however, tell a more nuanced story: each card wins one of the two shared tests, and the margins reveal distinct strengths that go beyond the raw averages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic divergence appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Arc A370M posts 29,676 points against the R9 M295X's 22,858 points. That is a 29.8% margin in Intel's favor — a decisive victory that underscores how far compute-oriented architectures have come. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw throughput and driver efficiency, and the Arc A370M's Xe-HPG design, built for modern APIs and parallel processing, appears to exploit this test far more effectively than AMD's older GCN 3.0 silicon. The R9 M295X, despite having double the shading units (2,048 vs 1,024), cannot overcome its architectural age in this synthetic compute scenario.

The Vulkan test flips the script, albeit narrowly. The R9 M295X scores 29,091 points, edging out the Arc A370M's 28,673 points by just 1.4%. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards efficient draw-call handling and memory subsystem performance, and the R9 M295X's 256-bit memory bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth likely plays a role here, giving it an advantage over the Arc A370M's 64-bit bus and 112.0 GB/s. The Arc A370M's 8 ray tracing cores do not factor into this test, so the older card's simpler architecture may actually help in latency-sensitive Vulkan scenarios.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both GPUs show they are competitive with a broad range of cards. The Arc A370M trails the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH by 0.1% and the AMD FirePro W8000 by 0.1%, while leading the AMD Radeon RX 470 by 0.6% and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M by 1%. The R9 M295X, meanwhile, is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 570, 1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 470. These delta percentages cluster tightly, confirming that both cards sit in a crowded mid-range performance band where a few percentage points separate dozens of products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has an average benchmark score of 29,175, compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M295X's 28,580. That is a 595-point difference, or roughly 2.1% in Intel's favor, yet both cards share the same 74th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Arc A370M wins OpenCL decisively, scoring 29,676 versus the R9 M295X's 22,858. This represents a 29.8% advantage for Intel, making it the largest performance gap between the two across any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the R9 M295X win any benchmark against the Arc A370M?

A: Yes, the R9 M295X wins in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 29,091 against the Arc A370M's 28,673. The margin is 1.4%, a narrow but notable reversal of the OpenCL result.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Arc A370M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both have the same capacity, but the R9 M295X has roughly 43% more bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Arc A370M was released on March 29, 2022, while the R9 M295X dates back to November 22, 2014.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, double the Arc A370M's 1,024. Despite this, the Arc A370M achieves higher FP32 throughput at 4.198 TFLOPS versus the R9 M295X's 2.961 TFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different generations and design philosophies. The Intel Arc A370M is built on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 Mobile. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter, a figure that highlights the efficiency of modern manufacturing. The R9 M295X, in contrast, uses the Amethyst chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, part of the Gem System for the R9 M200 series. It is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. Its transistor density is just 13.7 million per square millimeter — roughly one-third of Intel's density, showing how process-node advantages translate into compact, efficient designs.

The compute layouts differ fundamentally. The Arc A370M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores whatsoever. The Intel card also supports FP16 at a 2:1 rate, delivering 8.397 TFLOPS, while the R9 M295X runs FP16 at 1:1, matching its FP32 output of 2.961 TFLOPS. This makes the Arc A370M significantly more capable for mixed-precision workloads, a feature that modern games and compute applications increasingly leverage.

API support further separates the two. The Arc A370M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. DirectX 12 Ultimate brings features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the R9 M295X cannot handle due to both its API level and lack of dedicated hardware. The Arc A370M also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the R9 M295X relies on an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, reflecting its older mobile module form factor.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification, starting with process node and die size. The Arc A370M is a 6 nm part with a 157 mm² die, while the R9 M295X is a 28 nm part with a 366 mm² die — more than twice the physical area. Transistor counts also differ: 7,200 million for Intel versus 5,000 million for AMD. Clock speeds are only partially specified; the Arc A370M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and boost clock of 2050 MHz, while the R9 M295X lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Intel card's memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card offers 42.9% more bandwidth, a critical advantage for texture-heavy workloads. Pixel and texture rates also favor different cards: the Arc A370M achieves 65.60 GPixel/s and 131.2 GTexel/s, while the R9 M295X manages 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is a stark differentiator. The Arc A370M has a TDP of 35 W and fits an IGP slot width, while the R9 M295X draws 250 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors listed. This 215 W gap means the Intel card is designed for thin-and-light systems, whereas the AMD card requires a bulkier chassis with serious cooling. The R9 M295X lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile," while the Arc A370M has no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data points to two different kinds of winners depending on the workload. For compute-heavy tasks, particularly those using OpenCL, the Intel Arc A370M is the clear choice — its 29.8% advantage in that benchmark is overwhelming, and its FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS suggests it will sustain that lead in similar parallel workloads. The Arc A370M also offers modern features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the R9 M295X entirely lacks. For users prioritizing low power consumption, the 35 W TDP versus 250 W is not just a number — it fundamentally changes what kind of laptop can house the GPU.

However, the R9 M295X has its own claim. Its 1.4% Vulkan win, combined with 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, indicates it may handle certain graphics tasks — especially those sensitive to memory throughput — more smoothly. The R9 M295X also doubles the shading units and TMUs, which could benefit older games designed around that execution model. Its 256-bit bus is a structural advantage that no driver update can erase.

Neither card dominates the other outright; each wins one head-to-head benchmark, and their average scores are within 2.1%. The verdict hinges on context: the Arc A370M is the modern, efficient, compute-oriented part, while the R9 M295X is the high-bandwidth, legacy-friendly option. For anyone building or buying a system today, the Arc A370M's feature set and efficiency make it the more future-proof choice — provided the workload leans toward OpenCL or newer APIs. The R9 M295X remains viable for Vulkan-centric tasks where bandwidth matters more than raw compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A370M wins in OpenCL compute, FP32 performance, pixel and texture rates, and modern API support. Its 29.8% OpenCL lead and 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 output make it the pick for GPU-accelerated compute, machine learning inference, or any workload that leverages shader math. The 8 ray tracing cores give it a hardware advantage for ray-traced effects in DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, a feature the R9 M295X cannot match at any settings. Its 35 W TDP also makes it the only realistic option for ultraportable laptops or systems where thermal headroom is scarce. The 6 nm process and 45.9M / mm² transistor density suggest better efficiency per watt, though the data does not directly measure that metric.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in Vulkan graphics and memory bandwidth. Its 1.4% Vulkan victory, while narrow, points to strengths in low-level API execution. The 160.0 GB/s bandwidth from its 256-bit bus is 42.9% higher than the Arc A370M's, which can be decisive in games or applications that stream large textures or geometry. With 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs, the R9 M295X has more raw texture-processing hardware, potentially giving it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios despite its lower clock rates. Its 5 Gbps effective memory speed, while slower per-pin than Intel's 14 Gbps, benefits from the wider interface to deliver more total throughput. For users running Vulkan titles or older DirectX 12 (12_0) games, the R9 M295X may offer smoother performance, especially at higher resolutions where bandwidth becomes the limiting factor.