AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the AMD Radeon R9 M295X and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has an average benchmark score of 28,580, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 28,421. The AMD card is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA card in this metric, making the difference nearly negligible despite their very different specifications.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 101,883 versus 22,858 for the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. This represents a 77.6% margin in favor of the NVIDIA card, showing a massive compute advantage.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 features 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA card offers 12 times the memory capacity, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Q: Which GPU has higher transistor density, and what does that indicate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has a transistor density of 24.7 million transistors per mm², compared to 13.7 million per mm² for the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. This higher density reflects the NVIDIA card’s more modern 12 nm process node versus the AMD card’s 28 nm node.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA card’s support for 12_2 includes additional features not available on the AMD card.

Q: What are the Vulkan API versions for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 supports Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card’s newer Vulkan version provides more recent extensions and optimizations.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between two very different products that happen to sit close in average benchmark score. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the overwhelming choice for compute-heavy professional workloads, as demonstrated by its 77.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 76.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its 48 GB memory capacity, 576 tensor cores, and 72 RT cores make it suited for tasks involving large models, ray tracing, and AI acceleration. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X, despite being 0.6% ahead in average score, cannot match these capabilities. However, the AMD card’s compact MXM module form factor and lower 250 W TDP (versus 260 W for NVIDIA) suggest it was designed for portable systems where space and power are limited. For anyone needing maximum compute throughput or massive memory allocation, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the only rational pick. For legacy mobile deployments or applications where the MXM form factor is required, the R9 M295X remains a functional option, but benchmark results indicate it is vastly outclassed in raw performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided, with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 winning both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 101,883 against the AMD card’s 22,858, a delta of 77.6%. This is not a marginal victory but a complete rout, indicating that the Quadro RTX 8000 delivers roughly 4.5 times the OpenCL compute performance. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: NVIDIA scores 122,637 versus AMD’s 29,091, a 76.3% difference. The Vulkan result is even more striking because the AMD card’s own Geekbench Vulkan score of 29,091 is higher than its OpenCL score of 22,858, yet it still falls far short of NVIDIA’s Vulkan performance. Across both tests, the NVIDIA card wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head matchups, with no wins for the AMD card.

These deltas are consistent with the underlying hardware. The NVIDIA card has more than double the shading units (4,608 versus 2,048), more than double the texture mapping units (288 versus 128), and triple the ROPs (96 versus 32). Its FP32 throughput of 16.31 TFLOPS dwarfs the AMD card’s 2.961 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card’s memory bandwidth of 672.0 GB/s is over four times the AMD card’s 160.0 GB/s. The benchmark scores reflect these specification gaps almost linearly. One might wonder why the average benchmark scores are so close (28,580 vs 28,421). The answer lies in the different benchmark suites: the AMD card has scores for Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, while the NVIDIA card’s average includes a broader set including Passmark tests. The Passmark DirectX scores for NVIDIA (e.g., 137 for DirectX 10, 188 for DirectX 11, 79 for DirectX 12, 211 for DirectX 9) are low, which drags down its average. The AMD card, lacking those low scores, maintains a slightly higher average despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses a 28 nm process node, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 uses 12 nm. Transistor counts are 5,000 million for AMD versus 18,600 million for NVIDIA, and die sizes are 366 mm² versus 754 mm² respectively. The AMD card’s base and boost clocks are not listed, while the NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1395 MHz and boost clock of 1770 MHz. Memory configurations are drastically different: AMD has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth; NVIDIA has 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Shading units are 2048 for AMD versus 4608 for NVIDIA; TMUs are 128 versus 288; ROPs are 32 versus 96. The NVIDIA card adds 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 23.14 GPixel/s for AMD versus 169.9 GPixel/s for NVIDIA; texture rate is 92.54 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.961 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS; FP16 is 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) for NVIDIA. TDP is 250 W versus 260 W. The AMD card uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and a slot width of MXM Module, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and is dual-slot. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for AMD versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C for NVIDIA. Release dates are 2014-11-22 for AMD versus 2018-08-12 for NVIDIA. The AMD card’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile; NVIDIA’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and successor is Workstation Ampere.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is built on GCN 3.0 architecture with the Amethyst chip, part of the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 uses the Turing architecture with the TU102 chip, part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. GCN 3.0 is a decade-old design that lacks dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. Turing introduces both: 72 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and 576 tensor cores for AI and deep learning workloads. The FP16 ratio also differs — the AMD card offers 1:1 FP16 to FP32 (2.961 TFLOPS each), whereas NVIDIA offers 2:1 FP16 to FP32 (32.62 TFLOPS FP16 versus 16.31 TFLOPS FP32). This means the NVIDIA card can process half-precision data at double the rate of full precision, a feature that accelerates machine learning inference. The AMD card’s GCN 3.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while Turing supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The transistor density difference (24.7M/mm² for NVIDIA versus 13.7M/mm² for AMD) reflects not just the process node shrink but also the addition of specialized hardware units. The NVIDIA card’s 754 mm² die is more than double the AMD card’s 366 mm², allowing room for the RT and tensor cores. The AMD card’s memory clock of 1250 MHz is standard for GDDR5, while NVIDIA’s 1750 MHz GDDR6 offers higher effective data rates. These architectural differences explain why the NVIDIA card dominates in compute benchmarks despite having a similar average score.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins in every direct benchmark comparison. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 77.6% and Geekbench Vulkan by 76.3%. Its 48 GB memory capacity makes it suitable for massive datasets, 3D rendering scenes, or AI model training that would exhaust the AMD card’s 4 GB. The 672.0 GB/s memory bandwidth supports high-resolution textures and large framebuffers. The 576 tensor cores enable accelerated deep learning inference, while the 72 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing for professional visualization. The NVIDIA card’s 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 performance far exceed the AMD card’s 2.961 TFLOPS in both precisions. The Quadro RTX 8000 also offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus USB Type-C, supporting multi-monitor professional setups. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface integrates into standard workstation motherboards.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in exactly zero head-to-head benchmarks, but it retains niche advantages in form factor and power. Its MXM-B (3.0) interface and MXM Module slot width allow installation in laptops and compact systems where a dual-slot PCIe card cannot fit. Its 250 W TDP is 10 W lower than the NVIDIA card’s 260 W, and it requires no power connectors, whereas the NVIDIA card needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The AMD card’s 28 nm process and older GCN 3.0 architecture mean it draws less power for its modest workload, but the performance per watt is far lower given the massive performance gap. The AMD card’s Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 is not present in the NVIDIA results, suggesting it may have some utility in macOS or Metal-based applications, though no comparative data exists. For users constrained to an MXM slot or requiring minimal power connectors, the R9 M295X is the only choice. For anyone else, the Quadro RTX 8000 wins on every measurable performance metric.