AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 570 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon RX 570 across every shared test. In the two recorded head-to-head comparisons, the RX 570 wins both, with the margin ranging from substantial to overwhelming. The most lopsided result comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RX 570 scores 32,084 against the R9 M395X's 17,829, an 80% advantage. That is not a narrow edge; it is a generational gap expressed in raw compute throughput.

The Geekbench Metal test tells a similar story, though with a tighter margin. The RX 570 posts 39,349, while the R9 M395X manages 33,953, putting the RX 570 ahead by 15.9%. Metal scores often reflect driver maturity and memory subsystem efficiency as much as raw silicon capability, so this result suggests the RX 570 is not merely faster in compute-heavy workloads, it also holds a meaningful lead in graphics API performance.

Looking at the broader database averages, the RX 570 records an average benchmark score of 28,766 across all tested workloads, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The R9 M395X, by comparison, averages 25,891 and sits in the 71st percentile. The 11% gap in average score reinforces the head-to-head results, even though the M395X benefits from having fewer recorded benchmark entries, which can sometimes inflate or deflate averages depending on workload selection.

The RX 570's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.8% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X at 28,580 (0.7% lower). This clustering shows the RX 570 sits in a tightly contested performance band, where a few percent separates it from both mobile flagship parts and its own direct predecessor. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, a professional card, trails by 1.2% at 28,421, which puts the RX 570 in unusual company: it matches a workstation-class GPU in aggregate database scores.

The R9 M395X's nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD FirePro W7100 scores 25,856 (0.1% lower), the AMD FirePro D700 scores 25,842 (0.2% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 25,740 (0.6% lower). Notably, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT scores 26,011, which is 0.5% higher than the M395X. This places the M395X in a performance tier populated by professional workstation cards and a modern desktop GPU, but that tier sits well below where the RX 570 operates.

The OpenCL result deserves particular attention. An 80% delta in OpenCL is not a subtle refinement; it indicates the RX 570's GCN 4.0 architecture delivers roughly 1.8 times the compute throughput in that specific API. Since OpenCL is commonly used for non-gaming workloads like rendering, physics simulation, and data processing, this gap has practical implications beyond framerates. The RX 570's FP32 output of 5.095 TFLOPS versus the M395X's 2.961 TFLOPS aligns with this observed result, though the benchmark gap is even larger than the theoretical compute ratio would suggest.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 570 is the faster GPU in every measured category, with an 80% lead in OpenCL and a 15.9% lead in Metal. The average benchmark score gap of 2,875 points (28,766 versus 25,891) corresponds to a 3 percentile-point difference in the global GPU ranking. If the choice is purely about performance, the RX 570 wins without qualification.

Who should pick the RX 570? Anyone running OpenCL-heavy workloads, which includes many productivity and compute applications, will see a nearly doubled performance level. Gamers should also prefer the RX 570, as its higher pixel rate (39.81 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s) and texture rate (159.2 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s) indicate stronger rasterization throughput. The RX 570 also carries a more modern API stack, with Vulkan 1.3 support versus the M395X's Vulkan 1.2.170, which matters for newer titles and engines.

Who should pick the R9 M395X? The data supports only niche scenarios. The M395X offers 8 GB of memory versus the RX 570's 4 GB, so workloads that genuinely require more than 4 GB of VRAM and fit within the M395X's slower 160.0 GB/s bandwidth could favor it. The M395X also has a dramatically lower TDP of 75 W versus 150 W, making it relevant for constrained thermal environments or portable systems where power draw is the primary constraint. However, the M395X's memory bandwidth is 28.6% lower than the RX 570's 224.0 GB/s, so the extra capacity comes with a speed penalty.

For the vast majority of use cases, the RX 570 is the correct choice. The benchmark data shows no test where the M395X wins, and the aggregate percentile ranking confirms the RX 570 belongs to a higher performance class. The M395X is a capable part for its era, but the RX 570's newer architecture and higher clocks yield measurable gains across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The RX 570 is built on GCN 4.0 with the Polaris 20 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The R9 M395X uses GCN 3.0 with the Amethyst chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is fundamental: 14 nm versus 28 nm represents a full lithographic generation, which explains much of the efficiency and clock speed gap between the two.

Transistor counts tell an interesting story. The RX 570 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The M395X has 5,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 366 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 13.7 million per square millimeter. The RX 570 achieves 14% more transistors in 37% less silicon area, a direct consequence of the more advanced process node.

Both GPUs share the same core configuration at a high level: 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. This means the architectural improvements between GCN 3.0 and GCN 4.0 are not about adding more execution units, but rather about improving the efficiency and clock speed of the existing configuration. The RX 570's base clock of 1,168 MHz and boost clock of 1,244 MHz, combined with its higher IPC per clock from the newer architecture, produce the substantial performance deltas observed in benchmarks.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The RX 570 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1,750 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed, producing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but at 1,250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, yielding only 160.0 GB/s. The RX 570 has 40% more bandwidth despite having half the capacity, which is a critical trade-off: the M395X can hold more data but moves it more slowly.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is power consumption. The RX 570 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W power supply. The M395X draws only 75 W and needs no external power connectors, operating as an MXM module. This 2x difference in TDP makes the M395X far more suitable for laptops and compact systems, while the RX 570 demands a desktop power supply with headroom.

Physical form factors also diverge completely. The RX 570 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length with display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The M395X is an MXM module with display outputs described as "portable device dependent," meaning it has no fixed output configuration and relies on the host laptop or all-in-one system.

The memory capacity difference is the other major specification gap. The RX 570 offers 4 GB, while the M395X offers 8 GB. Both use GDDR5 and a 256-bit bus, but the RX 570's higher memory clock gives it the bandwidth advantage. The release dates also differ by roughly two years: the RX 570 launched on April 17, 2017, while the M395X launched on May 4, 2015. The RX 570 falls in the Polaris (RX 500) generation and lists Arctic Islands as its predecessor and Vega as its successor. The M395X belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation, with Solar System as its predecessor and Polaris Mobile as its successor.

API support shows a modest advantage for the RX 570. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 570 supports Vulkan 1.3 while the M395X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 570 also has a launch MSRP of 169 USD, while the M395X has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 570 scores 39,349 in Geekbench Metal, which is 15.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M395X's score of 33,953.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The RX 570 scores 32,084 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the M395X scores 17,829. This gives the RX 570 an 80% advantage, the largest margin in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Does the R9 M395X have more memory?

A: Yes, the R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 570 has 4 GB. However, the RX 570 has higher memory bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 570 has a TDP of 150 W and needs a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 450 W suggested power supply. The M395X has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The RX 570 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the M395X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their global percentile rankings compare?

A: The RX 570 sits in the 74th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 28,766. The M395X sits in the 71st percentile with an average score of 25,891.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 570 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its 80% OpenCL lead makes it the clear choice for compute-oriented tasks, including rendering, scientific simulation, and any workload that leverages OpenCL acceleration. Its 15.9% Metal advantage extends this dominance to Apple ecosystem graphics workloads, where Metal is the primary API. The RX 570's higher pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s indicate stronger fill-rate performance, which translates to better rasterization in games and graphical applications.

The RX 570 also wins on efficiency of design. It achieves higher performance with a newer process node, smaller die, and higher transistor density. Its 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provides 40% more data throughput than the M395X, which benefits high-resolution textures and memory-intensive workloads. The Vulkan 1.3 support ensures compatibility with the latest graphics APIs and games that require newer driver features.

The M395X wins in specific, narrow scenarios. Its 8 GB memory capacity exceeds the RX 570's 4 GB, so workloads that require more than 4 GB of VRAM, such as very large datasets or certain machine learning inference tasks, could exhaust the RX 570's memory while fitting within the M395X's allocation. The M395X's 75 W TDP makes it suitable for systems with severe power constraints, such as thin laptops or compact all-in-one machines where a 150 W card is physically and thermally impossible.

The M395X also occupies the MXM form factor, which is relevant for upgrading laptops that use modular GPUs. The RX 570's dual-slot desktop format cannot be installed in such systems without significant chassis modification or external GPU enclosures. For users with an M395X-equipped laptop that supports MXM upgrades, the M395X represents a known-quantity replacement, though the RX 570's superior performance in every benchmark suggests any comparable MXM alternative based on newer architecture would be preferable.

In summary, the RX 570 dominates the performance comparison, winning both head-to-head tests and holding a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking. The M395X offers more memory and lower power draw, making it relevant for capacity-bound or power-limited environments. For general gaming, compute, and graphics workloads, the benchmark data consistently favors the RX 570.