AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X represent two distinct eras of AMD graphics technology. The data shows a decisive generational shift, with the newer RX 6700 XT dominating in every measurable benchmark category. While both cards hold surprisingly similar overall percentile rankings, the actual performance gap is enormous, making the R9 M395X a legacy part that is outclassed by its successor in nearly every conceivable workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is stark, with the RX 6700 XT winning all two shared benchmark tests. The most significant victory comes in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 6700 XT scores 130,896 points against the R9 M395X's 33,953 points. This represents a staggering 285.5% delta, meaning the newer card delivers nearly four times the performance in this Apple-centric graphics API test. Such a wide margin illustrates not just a raw speed advantage, but a fundamental difference in architectural efficiency and feature support.

The second shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, tells a similar story. The RX 6700 XT achieves a score of 44,152, while the R9 M395X manages 17,829. The delta here is 147.6%, indicating that the RX 6700 XT is roughly two and a half times faster in general-purpose GPU compute workloads. This is particularly notable because OpenCL is a cross-platform standard that often favors older architectures less, yet the newer card still asserts complete dominance.

Looking at the broader benchmark ecosystem, the RX 6700 XT's average benchmark score of 27,425 places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile with an average score of 27,435 (a 0% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 at 27,565 (a -0.5% delta for the AMD card). This places the RX 6700 XT in rarefied company, performing essentially on par with a flagship desktop GPU from the previous generation and a modern high-end mobile part.

In contrast, the R9 M395X, despite its older architecture, holds a surprisingly similar 71st percentile ranking with an average score of 25,891. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 with a 0.1% delta and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT at a -0.5% delta. The fact that the R9 M395X sits near the same percentile as the RX 6700 XT is misleading; it likely reflects the smaller pool of benchmark submissions for this mobile part, as the absolute score difference of 1,534 points (27,425 vs. 25,891) is far smaller than the head-to-head deltas would suggest. The data confirms that in direct competition, the RX 6700 XT is the clear victor.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 XT wins decisively across all available benchmark categories. In the Geekbench Metal test, its 285.5% lead indicates it is the superior choice for applications leveraging Apple's Metal API, which is common in creative and professional software on macOS systems. The 130,896 score suggests it can handle complex 3D rendering, video editing, and GPU-accelerated effects without breaking a sweat, whereas the R9 M395X's 33,953 score would likely struggle with such tasks.

For compute workloads, the RX 6700 XT's 147.6% advantage in OpenCL makes it the clear winner for scientific simulation, machine learning inference, and other general-purpose compute tasks. Its 44,152 score versus 17,829 demonstrates a significant capacity for parallel processing, allowing it to chew through large datasets and complex algorithms much faster. The R9 M395X, with its GCN 3.0 architecture, is not without compute capability, but it is clearly outmatched.

The R9 M395X has no benchmark wins over the RX 6700 XT. However, its role as a mobile MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no external power connectors means it occupies a unique niche. It is a low-power part designed for laptops where space and thermal constraints are paramount. In that context, it is a capable performer for its time, but the data shows it cannot compete with the desktop-class RX 6700 XT in any absolute performance metric. The RX 6700 XT is the winner for any user prioritizing raw performance, while the R9 M395X's only advantage lies in its form factor and power efficiency profile, which are not reflected in benchmark scores.

FAQ

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

A: The RX 6700 XT scores 130,896 points compared to the R9 M395X's 33,953 points, resulting in a 285.5% performance advantage.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score, and what is the difference?

A: The RX 6700 XT has an average score of 27,425, while the R9 M395X has an average of 25,891. The difference is 1,534 points in favor of the RX 6700 XT.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card compared to all GPUs?

A: The RX 6700 XT is in the 72nd percentile, and the R9 M395X is in the 71st percentile, despite the large performance gap between them.

Q: Does the R9 M395X win in any benchmark category?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the RX 6700 XT wins both the Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL tests.

Q: What is the performance delta in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RX 6700 XT leads with 44,152 points versus 17,829 for the R9 M395X, a delta of 147.6%.

Q: How does the RX 6700 XT compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 in average score?

A: The RX 6700 XT's average score of 27,425 is only 0.5% lower than the RTX 3090's average score of 27,565.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every core specification. The RX 6700 XT features a 12 GB GDDR6 memory configuration with a 192-bit bus width, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M395X, in contrast, has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is significantly lower at 160.0 GB/s. The newer card also has more shading units (2560 vs. 2048), more texture mapping units (160 vs. 128), and double the render output units (64 vs. 32).

Clock speeds differ dramatically as well. The RX 6700 XT has a base clock of 2321 MHz, a boost clock of 2581 MHz, and a game clock of 2424 MHz. The R9 M395X has no listed base or boost clocks, but its memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the RX 6700 XT's 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The RX 6700 XT also has a much higher TDP at 230 W compared to the R9 M395X's 75 W, and it uses a dual-slot design with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the R9 M395X is an MXM module with no power connectors.

The RX 6700 XT supports newer PCIe 4.0 x16, while the R9 M395X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ, with the RX 6700 XT offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the R9 M395X's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." Finally, the RX 6700 XT has a launch MSRP of 479 USD, while the R9 M395X has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 51.3M per mm². This modern architecture includes 40 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the R9 M395X completely lacks.

The R9 M395X is based on the much older GCN 3.0 architecture using the Amethyst chip, built on a 28 nm process. It has 5,000 million transistors on a slightly larger 366 mm² die, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 13.7M per mm². Its generation is listed as "Gem System (R9 M300)," while the RX 6700 XT belongs to the "Navi II (RX 6000)" generation. The R9 M395X has no ray tracing support and no tensor cores, which the RX 6700 XT also lacks, but the newer card's feature set is far more advanced.

The RX 6700 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R9 M395X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). It also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 on the older card. The FP32 performance tells the story of raw compute power: the RX 6700 XT delivers 13.21 TFLOPS, while the R9 M395X manages just 2.961 TFLOPS. Similarly, the texture and pixel rates are far higher on the newer card, with 413.0 GTexel/s and 165.2 GPixel/s compared to 92.54 GTexel/s and 23.14 GPixel/s respectively. This architectural evolution from GCN to RDNA represents a complete overhaul of the GPU core design, explaining the massive performance deltas observed in the benchmarks.