AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The R9 M295X is a mobile-first GCN 3.0 part from 2014, while the RTX 3090 is a desktop Ampere flagship from 2020. Benchmark data confirms the generational gulf: in Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 against the R9 M295X’s 22,858, a 86.8% delta. In Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains decisive, with the RTX 3090 leading 53,927 to 29,091 (46.1% delta). These numbers frame a comparison that is less a contest than a historical study.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X posts an average benchmark score of 28,580, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 averages 27,565. Despite the RTX 3090’s dominance in raw compute tests, the R9 M295X holds a slight edge in this aggregate metric, a discrepancy driven by the different benchmark suites each card was tested with.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX 3090 wins decisively, scoring 53,927 versus the R9 M295X’s 29,091. This represents a 46.1% delta in favor of NVIDIA. The R9 M295X’s Vulkan result is still respectable given its age, but it trails by a wide margin.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 3090 ships with 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 936.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s. The RTX 3090 offers six times the capacity and nearly six times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 3090’s GA102 chip achieves 45.1M transistors per mm², manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. The R9 M295X’s Amethyst chip, built on TSMC’s 28 nm node, has a density of 13.7M / mm². The RTX 3090’s density is over three times higher.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R9 M295X and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 are listed as end-of-life products. The R9 M295X was released on 2014-11-22, while the RTX 3090 launched on 2020-08-31.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 3090 delivers 189.8 GPixel/s, compared to the R9 M295X’s 23.14 GPixel/s. This is an 8.2x advantage for the NVIDIA card, reflecting its much higher ROP count of 112 versus 32.

Architecture Differences

The R9 M295X is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Amethyst chip. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. The RTX 3090 uses NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm node. This newer process packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, a 5.66x increase in transistor count and a 3.29x increase in die area over the older card.

The compute configurations are starkly different. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 3090 scales this up dramatically with 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The RTX 3090 also introduces dedicated hardware absent from the R9 M295X: 82 ray tracing cores and 328 tensor cores. These features enable DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support on the NVIDIA card, while the AMD part is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

API support also diverges. The R9 M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RTX 3090 supports Vulkan 1.4. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The memory subsystems are equally different: the R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the RTX 3090 uses 24 GB of GDDR6X at 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). The RTX 3090’s 384-bit bus versus the R9 M295X’s 256-bit bus further widens the bandwidth gap.

Power and physical design reflect their different target markets. The R9 M295X is an MXM Module with no power connectors, drawing 250 W TDP. The RTX 3090 is a triple-slot card measuring 336 mm in length, with a 1x 12-pin power connector and a 750 W suggested PSU. The RTX 3090’s TDP is 350 W. The R9 M295X’s display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the RTX 3090 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes two common tests, both won by the RTX 3090. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 against the R9 M295X’s 22,858. The delta is 86.8% in NVIDIA’s favor, the largest margin in the comparison. This test highlights the RTX 3090’s raw compute throughput, which is supported by its 35.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the R9 M295X’s 2.961 TFLOPS. The RTX 3090 also has far more shading units (10,496 vs 2,048) and a higher texture rate (556.0 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel/s).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3090 wins again, but by a smaller margin. Its score of 53,927 is 46.1% higher than the R9 M295X’s 29,091. This narrower gap suggests that the older GCN architecture handles Vulkan relatively well, but the RTX 3090’s newer Ampere design with dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores still pulls ahead significantly. The RTX 3090’s Vulkan score is nearly double that of the R9 M295X’s OpenCL result, underscoring the generational improvement in API efficiency.

Notably, the R9 M295X has no benchmark wins in this head-to-head. Its only competitive metric is the Geekbench Metal score of 33,790, which has no RTX 3090 equivalent in the data. The RTX 3090’s other benchmarks—3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (5,118), Passmark G3D (26,645), and Passmark GPU Compute (15,356)—are all exclusive to the NVIDIA card. The R9 M295X’s average benchmark score of 28,580 is actually higher than the RTX 3090’s 27,565, but this is an artifact of the different test lists rather than a reflection of real-world performance parity.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 28 nm for the R9 M295X versus 8 nm for the RTX 3090, with foundries being TSMC and Samsung respectively. Transistor counts are 5,000 million versus 28,300 million. Die size is 366 mm² versus 628 mm². Transistor density is 13.7M / mm² versus 45.1M / mm².

Clock speeds show the RTX 3090’s advantage: it has a base clock of 1395 MHz and a boost clock of 1695 MHz, while the R9 M295X lists no base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory capacity is 4 GB GDDR5 versus 24 GB GDDR6X. Bus width is 256-bit versus 384-bit. Bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 936.2 GB/s.

Compute resources scale accordingly: 2,048 shading units versus 10,496, 128 TMUs versus 328, and 32 ROPs versus 112. The RTX 3090 adds 82 RT cores and 328 tensor cores, which the R9 M295X lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 23.14 GPixel/s versus 189.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 92.54 GTexel/s versus 556.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 2.961 TFLOPS for AMD versus 35.58 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Physical specifications diverge: the R9 M295X is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the RTX 3090 is triple-slot, 336 mm long, 140 mm high, 61 mm wide, with a 1x 12-pin connector. TDP is 250 W versus 350 W. The RTX 3090 suggests a 750 W PSU. Bus interfaces are MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 4.0 x16. The RTX 3090’s launch MSRP was 1,499 USD. The R9 M295X has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is the superior GPU by every measurable compute metric. Its 86.8% OpenCL lead and 46.1% Vulkan lead over the R9 M295X are decisive. In absolute terms, the RTX 3090 delivers 35.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.961 TFLOPS, 936.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s, and 24 GB memory versus 4 GB. For any modern workload—ray tracing, tensor compute, or high-resolution gaming—the RTX 3090 is the only viable choice, provided the user can accommodate its 350 W TDP, triple-slot footprint, and 750 W PSU requirement.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X, however, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 28,580 actually exceeds the RTX 3090’s 27,565, and its percentile rank of 74 is slightly higher than NVIDIA’s 73. In its own era, the R9 M295X was a capable mobile part, and its Vulkan score of 29,091 shows that GCN 3.0 aged reasonably well in API support. But its 250 W TDP in an MXM form factor, 4 GB memory ceiling, and lack of ray tracing or tensor cores make it unsuitable for contemporary high-end use.

The RTX 3090’s nearest rivals—the RTX 4070 Mobile (delta 0.5%), RX 6700 XT (delta 0.5%), and RX 7800M (delta -1.1%)—all cluster within 1.1% of its average score, indicating that its aggregate performance is competitive with mid-range modern parts. The R9 M295X’s rivals, such as the Quadro RTX 8000 (delta 0.6%) and RX 570 (delta -0.6%), are similarly close, but these are much older or lower-tier products. The verdict is clear: choose the RTX 3090 for any modern task requiring maximum compute, and consider the R9 M295X only for legacy compatibility or niche mobile applications where its MXM form factor is a requirement.