AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X and NVIDIA RTX A4000 represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly seven years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data reveals a decisive generational gap: in the two shared compute workloads, the RTX A4000 dominates with scores that are over 4.5 times higher than the M295X, while the older AMD part shows its age through a 74th percentile ranking versus the NVIDIA card’s 72nd percentile. This comparison is less about a close contest and more about quantifying how far mobile and workstation graphics have progressed, with the data showing the RTX A4000 delivering performance that the R9 M295X cannot approach.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is stark and one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 105,739, which is a massive 78.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X’s 22,858. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete overhaul of compute throughput, with the RTX A4000 processing over four times the work in the same time frame. The Vulkan results tell the same story, with the RTX A4000 posting 127,645 against the M295X’s 29,091, a 77.2% deficit for the AMD part. These deltas are so large that they suggest the R9 M295X is not merely slower but is operating in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the aggregate data, the RTX A4000’s average benchmark score of 26,683 is actually lower than the M295X’s 28,580, which seems paradoxical given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy highlights the importance of workload selection: the RTX A4000’s scores are drawn from a wide range of tests including Passmark’s DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 benchmarks, where it scores 240, 126, 158, and 72 respectively. These older API tests do not leverage the RTX A4000’s modern architecture effectively, dragging down its average. In contrast, the M295X’s average is based solely on Geekbench compute tests, which are more favorable to its GCN architecture. The head-to-head data, however, is unambiguous: when both are tested under identical modern compute loads, the RTX A4000 is overwhelmingly superior.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The R9 M295X is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process node, packing 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The RTX A4000, by contrast, uses Samsung’s 8 nm node, fitting 17,400 million transistors into a slightly larger 392 mm² die, achieving a density of 44.4M per mm². This density advantage is over three times higher, allowing NVIDIA to pack more than triple the transistors into nearly the same physical space. The M295X is based on the GCN 3.0 architecture (chip "Amethyst"), while the RTX A4000 uses the Ampere architecture (chip "GA104"). This is not just a node shrink; it is a complete redesign of how the GPU processes data.

The core configurations are wildly different. The M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the RTX A4000 features 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX A4000 also introduces dedicated hardware absent from the M295X: 48 RT cores for ray tracing and 192 tensor cores for AI workloads. In raw throughput, the RTX A4000 achieves 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, compared to the M295X’s 2.961 TFLOPS in both. This is a 6.5x increase in compute capability. Memory is another major divider: the M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A4000 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, quadrupling capacity and nearly tripling bandwidth to 448.0 GB/s. The API support also differs, with the M295X limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the RTX A4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Why does the RTX A4000 have a lower average benchmark score than the R9 M295X but win the head-to-head tests so decisively?

A: The average scores are calculated from different test sets. The M295X’s 28,580 average comes from three Geekbench compute tests, while the RTX A4000’s 26,683 average includes ten tests, several of which are older Passmark DirectX 9, 10, and 11 benchmarks where it scores 240, 126, and 158. These legacy tests do not favor the modern Ampere architecture, pulling its average below the M295X despite the RTX A4000 being 78.4% faster in OpenCL and 77.2% faster in Vulkan.

Q: How much more memory does the RTX A4000 offer, and does that affect benchmark results?

A: The RTX A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is four times the 4 GB of GDDR5 found in the R9 M295X. The data shows the RTX A4000 also has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s, a 2.8x increase. While the head-to-head tests do not isolate memory capacity as a variable, the higher bandwidth directly contributes to the RTX A4000’s superior compute scores, as larger data sets can be fed to the GPU faster.

Q: Is the R9 M295X competitive with the RTX A4000’s nearest rivals?

A: The M295X’s nearest rivals, based on average score, include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (0.6% higher), AMD Radeon RX 570 (0.6% lower), and AMD Radeon RX 6800M (1% lower). The RTX A4000’s rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.5% higher) and NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (1% higher). The data suggests the M295X is in a similar performance class to these mid-range cards, while the RTX A4000 sits slightly below its own rivals, indicating that the RTX A4000’s average score is not representative of its peak compute abilities.

Q: Can the R9 M295X handle modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which are older versions of these APIs. The RTX A4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, which include features like ray tracing and mesh shaders that the M295X’s architecture cannot process. This means the M295X is limited to less demanding rendering techniques, while the RTX A4000 is fully compatible with the latest graphics workloads.

Q: What is the thermal and power profile difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX A4000 has a TDP of 140 W, which is significantly lower than the M295X’s 250 W. The RTX A4000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and suggests a 300 W PSU, while the M295X is an MXM Module with no dedicated power connectors. The lower power draw of the RTX A4000 is notable because it delivers far higher performance while consuming 110 W less, indicating a massive efficiency improvement from the newer architecture.

The Verdict

The data points to an unequivocal choice for any modern workload: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the superior GPU. Its 78.4% lead in OpenCL and 77.2% lead in Vulkan are not close calls, and its 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the M295X’s 2.961 TFLOPS. The RTX A4000 also offers 16 GB of memory versus 4 GB, and does so while drawing 140 W compared to 250 W. The R9 M295X’s only claim to relevance is its higher average benchmark score of 28,580 versus 26,683, but this is an artifact of the test selection, not a reflection of real-world capability. For anyone using compute-heavy applications, the RTX A4000 is the only rational choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The RTX A4000 is built on an 8 nm process with 17,400 million transistors, while the M295X uses a 28 nm process with 5,000 million transistors. The RTX A4000 has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, compared to the M295X’s 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX A4000 includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores; the M295X has none. Clock speeds differ, with the RTX A4000 running at a 735 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost, while the M295X has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory configurations are 16 GB GDDR6 at 448.0 GB/s for the RTX A4000 versus 4 GB GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s for the M295X. The RTX A4000’s TDP is 140 W versus 250 W, and it is a single-slot card with a 6-pin connector, while the M295X is an MXM Module. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX A4000 and MXM-B (3.0) for the M295X. The RTX A4000 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the M295X’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The RTX A4000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the M295X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 wins in every modern compute benchmark category. It is 78.4% faster in OpenCL and 77.2% faster in Vulkan, making it the clear winner for GPU-accelerated rendering, machine learning inference, and scientific computing. Its 16 GB of memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth support larger datasets and textures, while its RT and tensor cores enable ray-traced graphics and AI workloads that the M295X cannot execute. The RTX A4000 also wins on efficiency, delivering massively higher performance at a lower 140 W TDP.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has no genuine wins in the head-to-head data. Its only statistical advantage is the higher average benchmark score of 28,580 versus 26,683, which is driven by the absence of legacy DirectX tests in its benchmark suite. The M295X is not competitive in OpenCL or Vulkan, and its architecture lacks the features required for modern DirectX 12 Ultimate titles. The data suggests that the M295X might be acceptable for very old or lightweight workloads where its 2.961 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is sufficient, but even then, the RTX A4000’s lowest Passmark scores (72 in DirectX 12) indicate it can handle those tasks with ease. The RTX A4000 is the winner in every meaningful application, from professional rendering to high-end gaming.