AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs Intel Arc Pro A30M Comparison

Intel Arc Pro A30M vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X: A Generational Leap in Mobile Graphics

The database records two mobile graphics solutions separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The Intel Arc Pro A30M, built on the Xe-HPG architecture with a 6 nm TSMC process, stands against the AMD Radeon R9 M295X, a GCN 3.0 part fabricated on a 28 nm node. While both target portable devices, their design philosophies, feature sets, and measured performance reveal a clear divide. The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show the Intel part leading by a substantial margin. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head data, answers common questions, and explains the architectural and specification differences that drive the performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X manages 22,858 points. The Intel GPU finishes 39.5% ahead of the AMD part. This is not a marginal win; it is a decisive lead that reflects the fundamental differences in compute capability and memory efficiency between the two designs. For context, the AMD Radeon R9 M295X's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 28,580, which includes its stronger Metal and Vulkan results, but the OpenCL comparison remains the only direct apples-to-apples metric in the database.

Looking at the Intel Arc Pro A30M's position among all GPUs, it sits at the 76th percentile. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA TITAN RTX with an average score of 31,676 (a 0.7% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro 570X at 32,176 (0.9% difference), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31,532 (1.1% difference). The AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32,388, which is 1.5% higher than the Intel part. These deltas show that the Arc Pro A30M punches well above its mobile, low-power positioning, trading blows with desktop-class workstation cards. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X, by contrast, sits at the 74th percentile, with an average score of 28,580. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 at 28,421 (0.6% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 570 at 28,766 (0.6% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (1% difference). The Radeon RX 470 scores 28,996, 1.4% higher. Although both GPUs occupy similar percentile ranges, the Intel part's average score remains higher, and the OpenCL head-to-head confirms it.

The 39.5% OpenCL advantage for the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the headline result. In raw compute terms, the Intel GPU delivers 4.096 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.192 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, whereas the AMD Radeon R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The Intel part's FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate, a hallmark of modern architectures optimized for AI and machine learning workloads. The AMD part's FP16 runs at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it offers no separate advantage for half-precision tasks. This architectural difference alone explains a significant portion of the OpenCL score gap, as modern compute workloads increasingly leverage FP16 and mixed-precision operations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

The Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 22,858. The Intel part leads by 39.5%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has a wider 256-bit memory bus and achieves 160.0 GB/s bandwidth with GDDR5 memory. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses a 64-bit bus with GDDR6 memory and reaches 128.0 GB/s. Despite the lower bandwidth figure, the Intel part wins compute benchmarks, suggesting its architecture uses bandwidth more efficiently or benefits from other factors such as compression techniques.

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

No. The AMD part has no dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro A30M includes 8 ray tracing cores, bringing hardware-accelerated ray tracing to the mobile professional segment.

Q: What APIs do the two GPUs support?

The Intel Arc Pro A30M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel part offers a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, built on a 6 nm process, packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X, on a 28 nm process, has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, for a density of 13.7 million per square millimeter.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

The Intel Arc Pro A30M has a TDP of 50 W and uses no external power connectors. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, also with no external power connectors, but it uses an MXM module form factor. The Intel part draws only one-fifth the power of the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro A30M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically using the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation for professional mobile systems. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The die measures 157 mm² and contains 7,200 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. This high density enables a relatively small chip to deliver substantial compute throughput. The GPU includes 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. The memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory operates at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The base clock is 1500 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2000 MHz. The pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is rated at 4.096 TFLOPS, while FP16 compute reaches 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The interface is PCIe 4.0 x8. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It was released on August 7, 2022, and is now end-of-life.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses the older GCN 3.0 architecture, with the chip codenamed Amethyst. It belongs to the Gem System generation, specifically the R9 M200 series. The process node is 28 nm, also from TSMC. The die is much larger at 366 mm², containing 5,000 million transistors, which yields a transistor density of only 13.7 million per square millimeter. The GPU has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores. Memory consists of 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. The base and boost clocks are not listed in the database. The pixel rate is 23.14 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 compute are both 2.961 TFLOPS, with a 1:1 ratio. The interface is MXM-B (3.0), and the slot width is listed as MXM Module. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. It was released on November 22, 2014, with the predecessor Solar System and successor Polaris Mobile. It is also end-of-life.

The architectural gap is stark. The Intel part uses a modern 6 nm process with nearly 3.4 times the transistor density of the AMD part. It also adds hardware ray tracing cores, which the AMD GPU lacks entirely. The Intel part's FP16 compute is double its FP32, while the AMD part's FP16 is identical to FP32, indicating the Intel architecture is designed for modern AI and compute workloads. The AMD part compensates with a wider memory bus and higher raw bandwidth, but its older architecture and lower compute throughput limit its overall performance.

Specification Differences

Where the two GPUs differ, the database records the following. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses a 6 nm process node, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses 28 nm. The Intel chip is DG2-128 with the Xe-HPG architecture, while the AMD chip is Amethyst with GCN 3.0. Transistor count is 7,200 million for Intel versus 5,000 million for AMD. Die size is 157 mm² for Intel versus 366 mm² for AMD. Transistor density is 45.9 million per square millimeter for Intel versus 13.7 million for AMD. The Intel part has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz; the AMD part has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory type is GDDR6 for Intel and GDDR5 for AMD. Bus width is 64 bits for Intel and 256 bits for AMD. Bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s for Intel and 160.0 GB/s for AMD. Memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for Intel and 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for AMD. Shading units are 1,024 for Intel and 2,048 for AMD. Texture mapping units are 64 for Intel and 128 for AMD. Raster output units are 32 for both. Ray tracing cores are 8 for Intel and none for AMD. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s for Intel and 23.14 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel and 92.54 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 compute is 4.096 TFLOPS for Intel and 2.961 TFLOPS for AMD. FP16 compute is 8.192 TFLOPS for Intel and 2.961 TFLOPS for AMD. TDP is 50 W for Intel and 250 W for AMD. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel and MXM-B (3.0) for AMD. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for Intel and 12 (12_0) for AMD. Vulkan support is 1.4 for Intel and 1.2.170 for AMD. Release dates are 2022 for Intel and 2014 for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, by 39.5%. It also wins on compute throughput, with 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 versus the AMD part's 2.961 TFLOPS for both. The Intel part has a higher pixel rate at 64.00 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 128.0 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. It adds hardware ray tracing, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and has a lower TDP of 50 W versus 250 W. For workloads that leverage modern APIs, FP16 compute, or ray tracing, the Intel part is clearly superior. Its 6 nm process also means a much smaller die and higher transistor density, making it a better fit for slim, power-constrained mobile workstations.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins on memory bandwidth, with 160.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s, thanks to its wider 256-bit bus. It also has more shading units (2,048 versus 1,024) and more texture mapping units (128 versus 64). For older applications that are bandwidth-bound or that scale with raw shader count rather than architectural efficiency, the AMD part might hold an advantage. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 28,580, and it scores 33,790 in Geekbench Metal and 29,091 in Geekbench Vulkan, showing it remains competitive in those API-specific tests. However, the database does not include a direct head-to-head for those tests, so the Intel part's performance in Metal and Vulkan is not recorded here. The AMD part also supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, though the Intel part's Vulkan 1.4 is newer.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Arc Pro A30M as the stronger GPU for modern compute and graphics workloads. It wins the only direct benchmark by 39.5%, delivers higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, adds ray tracing, and does so at one-fifth the power draw. Its 76th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA TITAN RTX and NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, shows it competes far above its mobile classification. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X, at the 74th percentile, is not far behind in overall ranking, but its average score of 28,580 is lower, and its architecture lacks modern features. The AMD part's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are its main advantages, but these do not translate into a winning OpenCL result. For a user choosing between these two, the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, ray tracing, and power efficiency. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X remains a relic of an older era, suitable only for legacy applications that favor raw bandwidth or for systems that require an MXM module form factor. The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Arc Pro A30M outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M295X in the recorded data, and its architectural advantages make it the better option for nearly all use cases.