AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 590 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 590

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD Radeon RX 590 represent two distinct generations of AMD graphics, separated by roughly three and a half years of architectural evolution. The R9 M395X is a mobile-class part built for the MXM form factor, while the RX 590 is a dual-slot desktop card that arrived in late 2018. Despite their different physical designs and power envelopes, both target 1080p-class gaming with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus — but the benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap in favor of the newer card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench Metal, and the results are lopsided. The RX 590 scores 48,407 points, while the R9 M395X manages 33,953 points. That is a delta of -29.9% for the older card, meaning the RX 590 outperforms the R9 M395X by roughly 43% in this test. To put that in perspective, the R9 M395X's score would need to increase by nearly a third just to match the RX 590 — a substantial gap that reflects both clock speed and architectural advantages.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all tests, the picture is slightly different. The R9 M395X actually posts a higher average of 25,891 versus the RX 590's 24,744. This is a 4.6% advantage for the older card, which may seem contradictory given the Geekbench Metal result. However, the average score is calculated across a broader set of workloads, and the R9 M395X benefits from its position among similar-scoring GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W7100 with an average score of 25,856 (just 0.1% behind), followed by the AMD FirePro D700 at 25,842 (0.2% behind). The R9 M395X also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, 0.6% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (26,011, -0.5% delta). This clustering suggests the R9 M395X is a consistent performer in its class, even if it cannot match the RX 590 in Metal-specific workloads.

The RX 590's nearest rivals tell a different story. It sits just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A350M (24,647). It also leads the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT by 1.2% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 by 1.9%. These are tight margins, indicating the RX 590's average benchmark score is competitive with a range of other mid-range GPUs, even though its Geekbench Metal result is far more impressive.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 590 is the clear winner in Metal-based compute workloads. Its Geekbench Metal score of 48,407 is not just higher — it is in a different performance tier entirely. For users running macOS-compatible applications that leverage Metal, the RX 590 offers a substantial performance advantage. The 29.9% delta in this test underscores how much faster the newer card is at executing GPU compute tasks in this API.

The R9 M395X, despite losing the head-to-head comparison, holds its own in the average benchmark ranking. Its 71st percentile versus all GPUs is one point higher than the RX 590's 70th percentile, and its average score of 25,891 beats the RX 590 by 1,147 points. This suggests the R9 M395X performs relatively better across a diverse set of workloads that are not all Metal-centric. Its position among rivals like the FirePro W7100 and D700 indicates strong OpenCL performance, where its 17,829 Geekbench OpenCL score contributes to its overall average.

For gaming, the data is less direct. The RX 590 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,081, which is a modern DirectX 12 test that the R9 M395X was not subjected to in this dataset. The R9 M395X's older GCN 3.0 architecture and lower clock speeds likely hamper its DirectX 12 performance, but without a direct comparison, the RX 590's advantage in this area is inferred from its architecture and specifications rather than a head-to-head result.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is significant. The R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The RX 590, by contrast, uses the Polaris 30 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a much smaller 232 mm² die, achieving 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter — an 80% improvement in density.

The RX 590 also has more execution resources. It features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the R9 M395X's 2,048 shaders, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This 12.5% increase in shaders and 12.5% increase in TMUs directly translates to higher throughput. The RX 590's clock speeds are dramatically higher: 1,469 MHz base and 1,545 MHz boost, while the R9 M395X does not list base or boost clocks in the data. The memory clock difference is also stark — the RX 590 runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus the R9 M395X's 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), resulting in 256.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

These differences manifest in raw compute numbers. The RX 590 delivers 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the R9 M395X's 2.961 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 49.44 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 222.5 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and have similar FP16 capabilities at a 1:1 ratio, but the RX 590 supports Vulkan 1.3 while the R9 M395X is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Power and physical design differ enormously. The R9 M395X is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for laptops. The RX 590 is a dual-slot card with a 175 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. It measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and offers 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the R9 M395X's display outputs are portable-device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 590 scores 48,407 points in Geekbench Metal, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X scores 33,953 points. The RX 590 leads by 29.9% in this test.

Q: Does the R9 M395X have a higher average benchmark score?

A: Yes. The R9 M395X has an average benchmark score of 25,891, which is 1,147 points higher than the RX 590's average of 24,744. This places the R9 M395X at the 71st percentile versus all GPUs, one point above the RX 590.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. However, the RX 590's memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M395X's memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 160.0 GB/s.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The R9 M395X has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM module with no power connectors. The RX 590 has a 175 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which architecture does each card use?

A: The R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 590 uses the Polaris 30 chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The R9 M395X has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. The RX 590 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 24.6M per mm² versus 13.7M per mm² for the older card.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy, but the choice depends heavily on the use case and platform. The RX 590 is the outright winner in raw compute and modern API support. Its 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 49.44 GPixel/s pixel rate are all more than double the R9 M395X's corresponding figures. The 29.9% Geekbench Metal advantage is decisive, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,081 demonstrates capability in current DirectX 12 titles. For desktop users building a gaming rig with a 450 W PSU and a dual-slot card, the RX 590 is the obvious choice — its 12 nm architecture, higher clock speeds, and superior Vulkan 1.3 support make it a more future-proof investment.

The R9 M395X, however, is not without merit. Its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only viable option for mobile platforms, and its average benchmark score of 25,891 actually exceeds the RX 590's average. This suggests that in certain compute workloads outside of Metal, the R9 M395X remains competitive. Its 71st percentile ranking versus all GPUs is also one point higher than the RX 590's 70th percentile, indicating strong relative performance across a broad test suite. For users with a laptop that accepts MXM modules, the R9 M395X offers a reasonable performance level without requiring external power connectors.

That said, the architectural gap is undeniable. The RX 590's 12 nm process, 80% higher transistor density, and 12.5% more shading units give it a fundamental advantage that clock speeds cannot fully compensate for on the older card. The R9 M395X's 28 nm process and lower memory clocks cap its potential, even if its average score benefits from favorable OpenCL results. The RX 590 also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus the R9 M395X's Vulkan 1.2.170, which matters for modern games and applications that rely on the latest API features.

For most users, the RX 590 is the superior product. Its Geekbench Metal lead, higher compute throughput, and modern feature set make it the better choice for gaming and compute workloads. The R9 M395X is a niche part for mobile systems where power consumption and form factor are paramount, and its competitive average score shows it is not obsolete — but it cannot match the RX 590 where it counts. Pick the RX 590 for desktop performance, and the R9 M395X only if you are constrained to an MXM-based laptop.