AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 470 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and decisive advantage for the AMD Radeon RX 470 across the two shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 470 scores 41,690 against the R9 M395X's 33,953, a 22.8% lead. This is a substantial margin in a graphics API workload, indicating the RX 470's architecture delivers noticeably higher raw compute throughput when tasked with Metal-accelerated operations.

The gap widens dramatically in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the RX 470 posts 33,568 while the R9 M395X manages only 17,829. The delta expands to 88.3%, meaning the RX 470 nearly doubles the OpenCL performance of its older counterpart. Benchmark results indicate this is not a marginal generational step but a fundamental leap in compute efficiency, likely stemming from the architectural and process improvements detailed later.

Across the two head-to-head tests, the RX 470 wins both, achieving a perfect 2-0 record. The aggregate benchmark score reinforces this: the RX 470 holds an average of 28,996 across all recorded tests, while the R9 M395X averages 25,891. That places the RX 470 at the 74th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 71st percentile for the R9 M395X. While the percentile gap is modest, the per-test deltas reveal where the real separation lies, particularly in compute-heavy workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The RX 470's average score of 28,996 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874), and it is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Arc A370M (29,175) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197). In essence, the RX 470 competes at a level comparable to those newer mobile parts, despite its older release date. For the R9 M395X, the average score of 25,891 places it 0.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842), but 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (26,011) and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740). These deltas show the R9 M395X is clustered with professional workstation GPUs, not with modern gaming parts.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD Radeon RX 470 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. For users prioritizing compute throughput, particularly in OpenCL environments, the RX 470's 88.3% advantage is decisive. It is not merely faster; it is in a different performance tier. The R9 M395X, while a capable mobile solution in its own right, falls significantly behind in raw compute scores.

Who should pick the RX 470? Any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain rendering tasks, scientific computing, or compute-focused applications, will see dramatic benefits. The 22.8% lead in Metal also makes it the stronger choice for macOS or iOS development environments where Metal is the primary API. The RX 470's higher percentile ranking (74th versus 71st) further confirms it sits above the R9 M395X in the overall performance hierarchy.

Who should pick the R9 M395X? The data is less favorable here, but there are specific scenarios. The R9 M395X operates at a 75 W TDP with no external power connectors, making it a lower-power MXM module solution. Its 8 GB memory capacity doubles the RX 470's 4 GB, which could matter for certain large-texture workloads or datasets that exceed the RX 470's memory ceiling. However, benchmark results show that even with double the memory, the R9 M395X cannot translate that capacity into superior compute scores. The R9 M395X also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 470 supports Vulkan 1.3, giving the newer part an API version advantage.

Strictly from the recorded measurements, the RX 470 is the recommended choice for performance-sensitive applications. The R9 M395X only makes sense in power-constrained, portable-device scenarios where its lower TDP and lack of power connectors are absolute requirements, and where the 8 GB frame buffer provides a specific capacity benefit.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The RX 470 is built on GCN 4.0, using the Ellesmere chip, and belongs to the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation. The R9 M395X uses GCN 3.0, built on the Amethyst chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. This architectural gap is the primary driver of the performance differential.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The RX 470 is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M395X uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node shrink allows the RX 470 to pack 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The R9 M395X, despite having 5,000 million transistors, requires a much larger 366 mm² die due to the older 28 nm process, resulting in a lower density of 13.7M per mm². The smaller die and newer process contribute directly to the RX 470's higher clock speeds and efficiency.

Clock speeds tell a clear story. The RX 470 has a base clock of 926 MHz and a boost clock of 1206 MHz, while the R9 M395X has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database. The memory clocks also differ: the RX 470 runs memory at 1650 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, whereas the R9 M395X runs at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. This translates to a bandwidth advantage for the RX 470: 211.2 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s, despite both using a 256-bit bus.

Both GPUs share identical core configurations: 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations units. However, the execution of these units differs dramatically. The RX 470 achieves a pixel rate of 38.59 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 154.4 GTexel/s, while the R9 M395X manages only 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput shows the same pattern: 4.940 TFLOPS for the RX 470 versus 2.961 TFLOPS for the R9 M395X. Both are listed as having 1:1 FP16 capability.

Memory capacity is one area where the R9 M395X takes the lead: 8 GB of GDDR5 versus 4 GB for the RX 470, both on a 256-bit bus. The RX 470 compensates with higher bandwidth, but the capacity difference is notable. Power requirements also diverge sharply. The RX 470 has a 120 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design with a single 6-pin connector, and requires a 300 W suggested PSU. The R9 M395X is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

API support differs as well. The RX 470 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R9 M395X also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 470's newer Vulkan version indicates better long-term compatibility with modern applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 470 has an average benchmark score of 28,996, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X averages 25,891. The RX 470 also ranks at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, versus 71st for the R9 M395X.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: The RX 470 scores 33,568 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 17,829 for the R9 M395X. This represents an 88.3% advantage for the RX 470, nearly doubling the R9 M395X's score.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the RX 470 achieves much higher throughput due to its newer architecture and higher clocks, with 4.940 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.961 TFLOPS for the R9 M395X.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 470 has 4 GB. However, the RX 470 has higher bandwidth at 211.2 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s, due to faster memory clocks (6.6 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective) on the same 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The RX 470 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M395X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RX 470 has a 120 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The R9 M395X has a 75 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is an MXM module, making it better suited for portable devices.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 470 wins decisively in compute-bound workloads. Its 88.3% lead in OpenCL makes it the clear choice for any application that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, whether that involves rendering, simulation, or data processing. The 22.8% Metal advantage extends this to any Metal-based graphics or compute task, which is particularly relevant for developers targeting Apple platforms or using Metal for high-performance visualization.

The RX 470's higher texture rate (154.4 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (38.59 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s) indicate superior rasterization throughput. This translates to better performance in traditional 3D rendering workloads, including gaming at high resolutions and detail settings. The higher memory bandwidth (211.2 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s) further supports this, allowing the RX 470 to feed its shader units more effectively in texture-heavy scenes.

The R9 M395X has a specific niche: capacity and power efficiency. Its 8 GB memory capacity is twice the RX 470's 4 GB, which matters for workloads that require large frame buffers, such as high-resolution texture packs, complex 3D scenes with heavy geometry, or certain machine learning inference tasks that need to hold large models in GPU memory. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it viable for systems with strict power budgets or where external power delivery is unavailable.

The R9 M395X also fits into MXM form factors, which are common in high-end laptops and portable workstations. For those specific mobile platforms, the R9 M395X is the only option of the two, as the RX 470 is a dual-slot desktop card. The R9 M395X's lower power draw also means less heat generation, which can be critical in compact chassis.

In terms of nearest rivals, the RX 470's average score of 28,996 puts it in the company of the RX 6800M (28,874, 0.4% behind), Arc A370M (29,175, 0.6% ahead), and RX Vega M GH (29,197, 0.7% ahead). This places the RX 470 at the edge of modern mobile GPU performance, despite its desktop orientation. The R9 M395X, at 25,891, sits with the FirePro W7100 (25,856, 0.1% behind) and FirePro D700 (25,842, 0.2% behind), firmly in workstation territory. Users seeking gaming or general compute performance should favor the RX 470; users constrained to portable, lower-power MXM platforms with a need for large memory capacity may find the R9 M395X acceptable, though the benchmark data shows it trails the RX 470 in every shared test.