AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 5700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive generational shift between these two AMD GPUs. In the shared tests available in the database, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 wins both head-to-head matchups, and it does so by a substantial margin. The RX 5700 does not merely outperform the R9 M395X; it redefines the performance class relative to the older mobile part.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5700 scores 86,079 points against the R9 M395X's 33,953 points. The delta percentage is -60.6% from the perspective of the older card, meaning the RX 5700 is roughly 154% faster in this specific API test. This is not a close race. The RX 5700 delivers more than double the raw compute throughput in Metal, which is a strong indicator of its architectural superiority in modern, low-level API workloads.

The gap widens even further in Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 5700 records 69,603 points, while the R9 M395X manages only 17,829 points. The delta percentage here is -74.4%, translating to the RX 5700 being approximately 290% faster. This result is striking because OpenCL is a more general-purpose compute API, and the R9 M395X was designed for a mobile platform with strict power constraints. The RX 5700's advantage in OpenCL highlights not just a raw clock speed or core count difference, but a fundamental leap in compute efficiency per watt and per transistor.

For context, the R9 M395X's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 25,891. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856, only 0.1% behind) and the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, 0.2% behind). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile sits at 25,740, which is 0.6% ahead of the R9 M395X. This places the R9 M395X in a peculiar spot: it is competitive with professional workstation GPUs from its era, but it is not in the same league as even mid-range modern parts.

The RX 5700, by contrast, averages 22,170 points across a wider test suite. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6700S (22,154, 0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (22,435, 1.2% ahead). The RX 5700 is also within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, which scores 22,549. This indicates that the RX 5700, despite being an older desktop card, still trades blows with much newer mobile and desktop GPUs.

The head-to-head table shows the RX 5700 winning both tests, with a total wins tally of 2 for the RX 5700 and 0 for the R9 M395X. The data is unambiguous: the RX 5700 is the clear victor in every recorded shared benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is the primary reason for the performance chasm. The R9 M395X is built on GCN 3.0, using the Amethyst chip, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 5700 uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. This is a two-generation leap in process technology, and the numbers reflect that.

The transistor counts tell a dramatic story. The R9 M395X packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.7 million per mm². The RX 5700 has 10,300 million transistors on a much smaller 251 mm² die, achieving a density of 41.0 million per mm². That is a 3x improvement in transistor density, and it explains why the RX 5700 can deliver far more compute power while occupying less physical space. The smaller die also means shorter signal paths and lower latency, which contributes to higher achievable clock speeds.

Clock speeds are where the R9 M395X suffers most. The database lists no base or boost clock for the R9 M395X, but its memory clock is 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective bandwidth. The RX 5700 runs at a base clock of 1465 MHz, a game clock of 1625 MHz, and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. Its memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective bandwidth. The RX 5700's memory bandwidth is 448.0 GB/s compared to the R9 M395X's 160.0 GB/s. That is a 2.8x advantage in memory bandwidth, which is crucial for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

The compute units differ significantly. The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The ROP count doubling is particularly important for pixel fill rate: the R9 M395X achieves 23.14 GPixel/s, while the RX 5700 hits 110.4 GPixel/s. The texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the R9 M395X at 92.54 GTexel/s and the RX 5700 at 248.4 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is another major differentiator. The R9 M395X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS, while the RX 5700 delivers 7.949 TFLOPS. In FP16, the R9 M395X offers the same 2.961 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, but the RX 5700 jumps to 15.90 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. This means the RX 5700 is not just faster in traditional FP32 workloads; it has a dedicated advantage in FP16 compute, which is increasingly relevant for AI and machine learning tasks.

The API support also differs. The R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher Vulkan version and DirectX 12 feature level on the RX 5700 allow for more advanced rendering features and better optimization in modern game engines.

The RX 5700 also has a feature that the R9 M395X lacks: PCIe 4.0 x16 interface compared to PCIe 3.0 x16. This doubles the potential bandwidth between the GPU and the CPU, which can reduce load times and improve performance in CPU-bound scenarios. The RX 5700's display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 M395X's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile MXM form factor.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 worth upgrading from the R9 M395X?

A: The benchmark data strongly suggests yes. The RX 5700 wins both shared tests by margins of 60.6% and 74.4% respectively. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5700 scores 86,079 versus 33,953 for the R9 M395X. The performance difference is so large that it represents a generational leap, not just an incremental improvement.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 5700 has significantly better memory bandwidth. It offers 448.0 GB/s with GDDR6 memory, while the R9 M395X offers 160.0 GB/s with GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 5700's faster memory clock (1750 MHz vs 1250 MHz) and newer memory type give it a 2.8x bandwidth advantage.

Q: How does the power consumption compare?

A: The R9 M395X has a TDP of 75 W, while the RX 5700 has a TDP of 180 W. The RX 5700 uses more power, but it delivers far higher performance per watt. The RX 5700 also requires a 450 W suggested PSU and uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the R9 M395X is an MXM module with no power connectors listed.

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance for non-gaming tasks?

A: The RX 5700 is dramatically better in compute workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5700 scores 69,603 versus 17,829 for the R9 M395X. The RX 5700 also offers 7.949 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.90 TFLOPS FP16, compared to 2.961 TFLOPS for both on the R9 M395X.

Q: Are these GPUs still relevant for modern gaming?

A: The RX 5700 is more relevant than the R9 M395X. The RX 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are required for modern titles. The R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which may limit compatibility with the latest games. Both are end-of-life products, but the RX 5700's architecture is much more recent.

Q: How does the R9 M395X compare to its own rivals?

A: The R9 M395X sits in a tight performance cluster. Its average score of 25,891 is within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740) and within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842). This suggests it was competitive with professional mobile GPUs of its generation.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Amethyst vs Navi 10
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 vs RDNA 1.0
• Generation: Gem System (R9 M300) vs Navi (RX 5000)
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 7 nm
• Transistors: 5,000 million vs 10,300 million
• Die Size: 366 mm² vs 251 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.7M / mm² vs 41.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: None listed vs 1465 MHz
• Boost Clock: None listed vs 1725 MHz
• Game Clock: None listed vs 1625 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) vs 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s vs 448.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2048 vs 2304
• TMUs: 128 vs 144
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 23.14 GPixel/s vs 110.4 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 92.54 GTexel/s vs 248.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.961 TFLOPS vs 7.949 TFLOPS
• FP16: 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 15.90 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 75 W vs 180 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: None listed vs 450 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: None listed vs 268 mm length, 111 mm height, 36 mm width
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 vs 2019-07-06
• Predecessor: Solar System vs Vega
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs Navi II
• Launch MSRP: None vs 349 USD

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5700 is the superior GPU by every measurable metric. It wins both shared benchmarks, offers significantly higher compute throughput, has more memory bandwidth, and uses a much more advanced architecture. The RX 5700's average benchmark score of 22,170 is lower than the R9 M395X's 25,891, but this is misleading because the RX 5700 was tested across a wider range of workloads, including Vulkan and DirectX tests that the R9 M395X did not have recorded. In the two tests where both cards were measured, the RX 5700 wins by margins of 60.6% and 74.4%.

The R9 M395X's only advantages are its lower TDP (75 W vs 180 W) and its compact MXM form factor, which makes it suitable for laptops. However, the RX 5700's performance advantage is so large that it outweighs the power efficiency difference for most users. The RX 5700 is also a desktop card, so it requires a standard PCIe slot and external power connectors, which the R9 M395X does not need.

For a desktop user, the RX 5700 is the clear choice. For a laptop user, the R9 M395X is the only option between the two, as the RX 5700 is not designed for mobile form factors. The RX 5700 was released on 2019-07-06, while the R9 M395X was released on 2015-05-04. The four-year gap in release dates explains the massive performance difference.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 wins in every shared benchmark category. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 86,079 versus 33,953 for the R9 M395X, a 60.6% advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 69,603 versus 17,829, a 74.4% advantage. These are not narrow wins; they are dominant victories that reflect fundamental architectural superiority.

The RX 5700 also wins in raw compute specifications. It has more shading units (2304 vs 2048), more TMUs (144 vs 128), double the ROPs (64 vs 32), and nearly triple the FP32 throughput (7.949 TFLOPS vs 2.961 TFLOPS). Its FP16 performance of 15.90 TFLOPS is 5.4x higher than the R9 M395X's 2.961 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is another clear win, with the RX 5700 offering 448.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

The R9 M395X has no benchmark wins in the shared tests. Its only advantages are in power consumption (75 W vs 180 W) and form factor (MXM Module vs Dual-slot). For users who need a low-power mobile GPU with decent performance for its time, the R9 M395X was a reasonable choice. For anyone who can accommodate a desktop card with a 450 W PSU requirement, the RX 5700 is the better investment.

The use-case split is straightforward: the RX 5700 is for gamers, content creators, and compute users who need high performance and can handle the power draw. The R9 M395X is for laptop users who need a capable GPU for mobile workloads and prioritize battery life over raw performance. The RX 5700 also supports modern API features like DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, making it better suited for current software.