AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 6700M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X and the AMD Radeon RX 6700M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive generational leap, with the RX 6700M dominating in every head-to-head benchmark. While the R9 M395X holds its own as a capable legacy part, the benchmark results indicate that the RX 6700M is in a completely different performance class, making the comparison less about nuance and more about the magnitude of the technological advance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a stark and unambiguous picture. In the two available head-to-head tests, the AMD Radeon RX 6700M secures a clean sweep, winning both comparisons with overwhelming margins. The R9 M395X does not register a single benchmark victory.

The most significant disparity appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The RX 6700M scores 77,666, while the R9 M395X manages only 17,829. This represents a delta of -77% for the older card, meaning the RX 6700M delivers roughly 4.3 times the raw compute performance in this workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a categorical shift in processing capability, likely reflecting the fundamental architectural and process node advantages of the newer GPU.

Similarly, in the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 6700M posts a score of 91,911 against the R9 M395X’s 33,953. The delta here is -63.1%, indicating that the RX 6700M is still more than 2.7 times faster. While this is a slightly narrower gap than in OpenCL, it remains a colossal performance advantage that translates directly to higher frame rates and smoother gameplay in titles that leverage the Metal API.

Looking at the broader context, the R9 M395X’s average benchmark score of 25,891 places it at the 71st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856, delta 0.1%) and the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, delta 0.2%). Interestingly, it also sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT and 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, showing that its average score is competitive with those parts in this specific aggregated metric. However, this is misleading when compared directly to the RX 6700M.

The RX 6700M’s average benchmark score of 25,633 is actually slightly lower than the R9 M395X’s average, despite its crushing victories in the head-to-head tests. This is because the RX 6700M’s average includes results from a broader suite of tests, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores, which are numerically low and drag down the aggregate. The R9 M395X only has two Geekbench scores in its profile. This discrepancy highlights the importance of examining specific workload results rather than relying on a single aggregate number. In the tests where they directly compete, the RX 6700M is overwhelmingly superior.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs explains the benchmark disparity. The R9 M395X is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, utilizing the Amethyst chip, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the RX 6700M is a modern RDNA 2.0 part, using the Navi 22 chip, also from TSMC but on a much more advanced 7 nm node.

This process shrink is monumental. The 28 nm node allowed for 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.7M / mm². The 7 nm node, however, packs a staggering 17,200 million transistors into a smaller 335 mm² die, achieving a density of 51.3M / mm². This is nearly four times the transistor density, enabling far more complex logic and features within the same physical footprint.

The feature sets diverge significantly. The RX 6700M introduces 36 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R9 M395X. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the older card is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). The RX 6700M’s Vulkan support is version 1.4, compared to 1.2.170 on the R9 M395X. The RDNA 2.0 architecture also brings a 2:1 FP16 ratio, allowing for 22.12 TFLOPS of half-precision compute versus 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) on the GCN part. The memory subsystem has also evolved, with the RX 6700M using faster GDDR6 memory compared to the R9 M395X’s GDDR5.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6700M in compute-heavy tasks?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6700M scores 77,666 compared to the R9 M395X’s 17,829, a delta of -77%. This indicates the RX 6700M is over four times more powerful in this specific compute benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has better support for modern graphical features like ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700M has 36 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The AMD Radeon R9 M395X has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), so it cannot perform hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The R9 M395X features a 256-bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6700M, despite having a narrower 160-bit bus, uses faster GDDR6 memory to achieve 320.0 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth of the older card.

Q: What is the difference in their transistor counts and process nodes?

A: The R9 M395X is built on a 28 nm process with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. The RX 6700M uses a 7 nm process, packing 17,200 million transistors onto a smaller 335 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 51.3M / mm² compared to 13.7M / mm².

Q: Are both GPUs considered end-of-life products?

A: Yes, the production status for both the AMD Radeon R9 M395X and the AMD Radeon RX 6700M is listed as "End-of-life."

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6700M has a pixel rate of 153.6 GPixel/s, while the R9 M395X has a pixel rate of 23.14 GPixel/s. The newer card is over six times faster in this metric, which is critical for high-resolution rendering.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a comprehensive upgrade across every major component. The most fundamental difference lies in the architecture and process node, as detailed above.

• Architecture: GCN 3.0 vs RDNA 2.0
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 7 nm
• Transistors: 5,000 million vs 17,200 million
• Die Size: 366 mm² vs 335 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.7M / mm² vs 51.3M / mm²
• Ray Tracing Cores: None vs 36
• Base Clock: N/A vs 1489 MHz
• Boost Clock: N/A vs 2400 MHz
• Game Clock: N/A vs 2300 MHz
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 10 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 160 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s vs 320.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2048 vs 2304
• TMUs: 128 vs 144
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 23.14 GPixel/s vs 153.6 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 92.54 GTexel/s vs 345.6 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 2.961 TFLOPS vs 11.06 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 75 W vs 135 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 vs 2021-05-30

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD Radeon RX 6700M is a vastly superior GPU. In the two head-to-head benchmarks, it wins decisively, with deltas of -63.1% and -77% against the R9 M395X. Its architectural advantages—a modern RDNA 2.0 design on a 7 nm process with a significantly higher transistor count, double the memory bandwidth, and dedicated ray tracing hardware—make it the clear choice for any modern workload.

The R9 M395X is a product of its time, a 2015-era part with a 28 nm process and GCN 3.0 architecture. While its average benchmark score is comparable to the RX 6700M when looking at the broader database, this is an artifact of differing benchmark suites. In direct competition, it is outclassed by a factor of nearly four in compute performance. There is no scenario where the data suggests the R9 M395X is the better performer.

For anyone building or buying a system, the choice is straightforward. The RX 6700M offers a massive leap in performance, modern feature support, and future-proofing. The R9 M395X, while functional for legacy applications, is not competitive in this matchup.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the AMD Radeon RX 6700M wins in every measured category. It has no losses and sweeps both tests.

• Compute Performance (OpenCL): The RX 6700M wins decisively with a score of 77,666 versus 17,829, a delta of -77%. This makes it the choice for GPGPU tasks and compute-heavy applications.
• Graphics API Performance (Metal): The RX 6700M wins with a score of 91,911 versus 33,953, a delta of -63.1%. This indicates superior performance in macOS and iOS environments that utilize the Metal API.

The R9 M395X has no wins in the provided data. Its only potential advantage is its lower TDP of 75 W compared to the RX 6700M’s 135 W, which could theoretically allow for a more power-efficient system in a very specific legacy context. However, this is not a performance win, and the data provides no benchmark where the older card outperforms the newer one.