AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A1000 and AMD Radeon R9 M295X are separated by nearly a decade of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The RTX A1000, a modern Ampere workstation card, holds decisive leads in compute and API-specific tests, while the R9 M295X, an end-of-life GCN 3.0 mobile part, offers only its historical footprint as a differentiator. The recorded measurements show the RTX A1000 winning both direct head-to-head comparisons, with a 127.8% advantage in OpenCL and a 70.4% advantage in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 wins in every workload represented in the database. Its average benchmark score of 34207 places it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M295X sits at a 28580 average score, good for the 74th percentile. The practical use-case split is straightforward: the RTX A1000 is the choice for modern compute tasks, especially those leveraging DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, or ray tracing. Its 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores give it capabilities the R9 M295X simply does not have, as the older card has no ray tracing or tensor hardware listed in its specifications.

The R9 M295X has no benchmark wins in the measured data. Its strengths, if any, would be limited to scenarios where its 256-bit memory bus and higher texture unit count (128 TMUs versus 72) might matter, but the recorded scores do not support that hypothesis. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M295X scores 22858, which is less than half of the RTX A1000's 52078. For Vulkan, the margin narrows somewhat but remains lopsided: 29091 versus 49574. The data suggests the R9 M295X is only relevant for legacy software or systems that specifically require an MXM-B module, as its form factor is listed as "MXM Module" while the RTX A1000 is a standard single-slot PCIe 4.0 x8 card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip on a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts tell part of the story: the RTX A1000 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M295X has 5,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 366 mm² die, for a density of only 13.7 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser process gives the RTX A1000 a massive efficiency advantage, reflected in its 50 W TDP versus the R9 M295X's 250 W TDP.

Core configurations differ significantly. The RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. The R9 M295X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but no RT or tensor cores. The R9 M295X's higher TMU count is its only raw resource advantage, but it does not translate into benchmark wins. Clock speeds also favor the RTX A1000: it runs at a base of 727 MHz and boosts to 1462 MHz, while the R9 M295X has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RTX A1000's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are another major divergence. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The RTX A1000 wins on both capacity and bandwidth despite the narrower bus. API support also shows the generational leap: the RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these cards, and the RTX A1000 wins both by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 scores 52078 against the R9 M295X's 22858, a delta of 127.8%. That is more than double the older card's performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A1000 scores 49574 versus 29091, a 70.4% advantage. The Vulkan gap is smaller but still decisive, suggesting the R9 M295X's GCN architecture handles the API reasonably well relative to its own OpenCL performance, but it cannot compete with modern Ampere hardware.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX A1000 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 969, a test the R9 M295X does not appear in. The R9 M295X does have a Geekbench Metal score of 33790, which is its strongest recorded result, but the RTX A1000 has no Metal benchmark listed, so a direct comparison is not possible from the data. The RTX A1000's average score of 34207 is 19.7% higher than the R9 M295X's 28580, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (0.2% higher), and the NVIDIA TITAN V (0.4% lower). The R9 M295X's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 570 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (1.0% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The RTX A1000. Its FP32 throughput is 6.737 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS for the R9 M295X, and it wins OpenCL by 127.8% in the head-to-head test.

Q: Does the R9 M295X have any winning benchmark in the database?

A: No. The winsA count is 2 for the RTX A1000 and 0 for the R9 M295X. The R9 M295X's best score is 33790 in Geekbench Metal, but the RTX A1000 has no Metal result for comparison.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX A1000 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A1000 leads in both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The RTX A1000 is a single-slot PCIe 4.0 x8 card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The R9 M295X is an MXM-B (3.0) module with outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for laptops or proprietary systems.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games?

A: The RTX A1000. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors needed. The R9 M295X has a 250 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed, which is typical for an MXM module that relies on the host system's power delivery.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the superior card for virtually any use case. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by substantial margins, has more than double the FP32 throughput, supports newer APIs, and does so at one-fifth the TDP. The R9 M295X, released in 2014 and now end-of-life, is only relevant if you are maintaining a legacy system with an MXM-B slot and cannot upgrade to a modern PCIe card. Its 4 GB VRAM and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth may still handle older titles, but the recorded scores do not suggest any workload where it outperforms the RTX A1000.

For builders or IT professionals selecting a GPU today, the RTX A1000 is the practical pick. It offers 8 GB of VRAM, a 79th percentile standing among all GPUs, and a form factor that fits standard desktops. The R9 M295X, with its 74th percentile score and reliance on portable device outputs, is a niche part with no current performance advantage. If you are on a fixed MXM platform and cannot change the slot, the R9 M295X is what you have, but the database shows no scenario where it wins on merit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A1000 | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 3.0 |

| Process node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 5,000 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Shading units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 72 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT cores | 18 | None |

| Tensor cores | 72 | None |

| FP32 | 6.737 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 250 W |

| Memory size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Base clock | 727 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost clock | 1462 MHz | Not listed |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |