AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two directly comparable benchmark tests between the AMD Radeon RX 6700 and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X. The results are decisive in both cases, with the RX 6700 winning both head-to-head comparisons.

In the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 6700 scored 122,223 points against the R9 M395X's 33,953 points. This translates to a 260% advantage for the RX 6700. The delta is substantial, indicating that the newer architecture delivers a massive performance uplift in Apple's Metal API workload, which is particularly relevant for macOS users or applications leveraging Metal.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows an even wider gap. The RX 6700 posted 97,841 points, while the R9 M395X managed only 17,829 points. That is a 448.8% difference in favor of the RX 6700. This result is striking because OpenCL is a cross-platform compute standard, and the near 4.5x performance gap suggests that the R9 M395X's older GCN 3.0 architecture is severely outpaced by RDNA 2.0 in general-purpose compute tasks.

Looking beyond the head-to-head tests, the broader benchmark database paints a consistent picture. The RX 6700 has an average benchmark score of 30,433 across all recorded tests, while the R9 M395X averages 25,891. That is a difference of roughly 17.5% in aggregate performance, though the head-to-head results show far larger deltas in specific workloads.

The RX 6700's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 75, meaning it sits above three-quarters of all recorded graphics cards. The R9 M395X holds a percentile ranking of 71, which is surprisingly close given the massive deltas in the direct comparisons. This suggests that while the R9 M395X is an older part, it still performs respectably relative to the broader GPU landscape, likely due to its mobile-oriented design and the fact that many comparable mobile parts are weaker.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these scores. The RX 6700 sits within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, which averages 29,945 points. It is also 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800, which averages 30,095. The RX 6700 trails the NVIDIA CMP 70HX by 0.1% and the Tesla M60 by 0.2%, differences that are within measurement noise. For the R9 M395X, its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1% behind), the FirePro D700 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (0.5% ahead). Interestingly, the R9 M395X edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile by 0.6%, which is a notable result for a 2015-era part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the superior product by every measurable metric. In the two available head-to-head tests, it wins both with deltas of 260% and 448.8%. The average benchmark score also favors the RX 6700 by a substantial margin, and its percentile ranking is higher at 75 versus 71.

Who should pick the RX 6700? Anyone requiring strong compute performance, particularly in OpenCL or Metal workloads. The 448.8% lead in OpenCL is not incremental; it is generational. Users running GPU-accelerated applications, rendering tasks, or machine learning workloads on OpenCL will see a transformative difference. The RX 6700 also offers modern API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which the R9 M395X lacks.

Who should pick the R9 M395X? The data suggests very few scenarios. Its only advantages are a lower TDP of 75 W versus 175 W, and its MXM module form factor, which is designed for portable devices. If the constraint is an MXM-based laptop with a strict power budget, the R9 M395X may be the only option that fits physically. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the RX 6700 wins every recorded benchmark. The R9 M395X also has a smaller memory bus advantage (256 bit versus 160 bit), but that does not translate into higher bandwidth in practice: the RX 6700 delivers 320.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s for the R9 M395X.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 6700 in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX 6700 scores 122,223 points versus 33,953 for the R9 M395X, which is a 260% advantage.

Q: What about OpenCL performance?

A: The RX 6700 scores 97,841 points versus 17,829 for the R9 M395X, a delta of 448.8% in favor of the RX 6700.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 6700 averages 30,433 points across all recorded tests, while the R9 M395X averages 25,891 points.

Q: Do the two GPUs have similar percentile rankings?

A: They are close: the RX 6700 is in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, and the R9 M395X is in the 71st percentile.

Q: How does the RX 6700 compare to the RTX 3070 Ti?

A: The RX 6700 has an average score of 30,433 versus 29,945 for the RTX 3070 Ti, putting the RX 6700 1.6% ahead.

Q: Is the R9 M395X competitive with any modern GPUs?

A: The data shows it is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile in average score, though it is 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W7100.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The RX 6700 uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC, while the R9 M395X uses a 28 nm node. The RX 6700 has 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 51.3 million per mm². The R9 M395X has 5,000 million transistors on a larger 366 mm² die, with a density of 13.7 million per mm².

Memory configurations differ significantly. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160 bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The RX 6700's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the R9 M395X runs at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective.

Compute unit counts also differ. The RX 6700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6700 includes 36 ray tracing cores, while the R9 M395X has none.

Clock speeds are only recorded for the RX 6700: base 1941 MHz, boost 2450 MHz, and game 2174 MHz. The R9 M395X has no recorded base, boost, or game clocks in the database.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The RX 6700 has a TDP of 175 W, is dual-slot, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The R9 M395X has a TDP of 75 W, uses an MXM module form factor, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The RX 6700 measures 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the R9 M395X has no recorded dimensions. The RX 6700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the R9 M395X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the RX 6700 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 M395X is "Portable Device Dependent".

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The RX 6700 is built on RDNA 2.0, part of the Navi II generation (RX 6000 series), using the Navi 22 chip. The R9 M395X uses GCN 3.0, part of the Gem System generation (R9 M300 series), with the Amethyst chip. This represents a leap of several architectural generations.

The process node difference is dramatic: 7 nm for the RX 6700 versus 28 nm for the R9 M395X. This explains the transistor density disparity, with the RX 6700 packing 51.3 million transistors per mm² versus 13.7 million for the R9 M395X. Despite the smaller die, the RX 6700 has over three times the transistor count.

The RX 6700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and variable rate shading. The R9 M395X tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the RX 6700 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M395X supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Compute capabilities show a similar generational split. The RX 6700 delivers 11.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 22.58 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The R9 M395X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 2.961 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the RX 6700 achieves 156.8 GPixel/s and 352.8 GTexel/s, while the R9 M395X manages 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s.

The RX 6700 has ray tracing cores (36 of them), which the R9 M395X entirely lacks. This is a hardware-level feature difference that cannot be compensated by drivers or software.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 wins every benchmark category where both have recorded data. In Geekbench Metal, it is 260% faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 448.8% faster. The average benchmark score also favors the RX 6700 by 17.5%.

The RX 6700's strengths lie in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by the massive OpenCL lead. Its modern RDNA 2.0 architecture with ray tracing support makes it suitable for DirectX 12 Ultimate titles and Vulkan 1.4 applications. The higher pixel rate (156.8 GPixel/s) and texture rate (352.8 GTexel/s) suggest strong rasterization performance for traditional gaming.

The R9 M395X has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its advantages are purely physical and operational: a 75 W TDP versus 175 W, an MXM module form factor for portable devices, and no external power connector requirement. The 256 bit memory bus is wider, but the lower effective memory speed results in half the bandwidth of the RX 6700.

For use cases like compact laptops with MXM slots and strict thermal budgets, the R9 M395X might be the only compatible choice. But for any scenario where performance matters, the data points exclusively to the RX 6700. The 448.8% OpenCL delta is particularly telling: it suggests that the R9 M395X is not just slower, but categorically outdated for modern compute demands. The RX 6700's nearest rivals include the RTX 3070 Ti and RX 6800, placing it in a performance class that the R9 M395X cannot approach.