AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X represent two distinct eras of AMD graphics, separated by a generational gulf in architecture and process technology. The data shows that while both cards occupy the same overall percentile rank among all GPUs (71st), their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the RX 6750 XT holding a 0.5% lead in average score. However, this aggregate similarity masks a dramatic divergence in individual workload performance, particularly in modern graphics APIs versus legacy compute tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking disparity in the head-to-head results appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 6750 XT delivers a score of 137,249 against the R9 M395X's 33,953. This represents a 304.2% advantage for the newer card, a factor of over four in raw performance. This test is particularly relevant for Apple ecosystem users and indicates that the RX 6750 XT's architecture is vastly more efficient at executing the Metal API's low-level commands. The sheer magnitude of this delta suggests that the R9 M395X, despite its similar average score, is severely bottlenecked in this specific environment, likely due to its older GCN 3.0 design lacking the optimized hardware pathways present in RDNA 2.0.

Conversely, the Geekbench OpenCL test presents a different narrative. Here, the R9 M395X scores 17,829, edging out the RX 6750 XT's 16,360, a delta of -8.2% for the newer card. This is a notable upset given the RX 6750 XT's substantially higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 13.31 TFLOPS versus the R9 M395X's 2.961 TFLOPS. The result suggests that the R9 M395X's GCN architecture, with its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, may have an advantage in certain compute-heavy OpenCL workloads that do not scale with the RX 6750 XT's 2:1 FP16 rate. It is a reminder that raw compute specifications do not always translate directly to benchmark victories, especially in cross-generational comparisons where driver optimizations and architecture-specific instruction scheduling play a significant role.

The benchmark data also reveals a critical divergence in test coverage. The RX 6750 XT has a comprehensive benchmark suite including 3DMark Steel Nomad (2,548), Passmark G3D (20,700), and Passmark GPU Compute (9,550), among others. The R9 M395X only has data for the two Geekbench tests. This lack of data for the R9 M395X in DirectX and Passmark tests means its average score of 25,891 is derived from a much smaller sample set, making the comparison of average scores somewhat misleading. The RX 6750 XT's average of 26,011 is pulled from a wider range of tests, including DirectX 12, Vulkan, and compute benchmarks, which paint a more complete picture of its capabilities across different application types.

FAQ

Q: The average benchmark scores are close, but which card is actually faster in modern games?

A: The head-to-head data strongly favors the RX 6750 XT in modern graphics APIs. Its 304.2% lead in Geekbench Metal indicates a massive performance advantage in a contemporary, low-level API. The R9 M395X's only win comes in OpenCL, which is less relevant for gaming than DirectX or Vulkan, where the RX 6750 XT also shows strong scores like 2,548 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

Q: Does the R9 M395X have any meaningful advantage over the RX 6750 XT?

A: Yes, in at least one specific compute scenario. The Geekbench OpenCL benchmark shows the R9 M395X scoring 17,829 versus the RX 6750 XT's 16,360, an 8.2% advantage. This suggests that for certain OpenCL compute tasks, the older card's architecture can be more efficient, despite its far lower theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.961 TFLOPS.

Q: Why is the R9 M395X's average score so close to the RX 6750 XT if it loses so badly in Metal?

A: The average score is skewed by the limited data available. The R9 M395X's average of 25,891 is based solely on its two Geekbench scores (Metal and OpenCL). The RX 6750 XT's average of 26,011 is computed from a much larger suite of 11 benchmarks, including Passmark G3D and 3DMark, which likely depress its average relative to what a purely Metal-focused score would suggest.

Q: What is the architectural generation gap between these two cards?

A: The RX 6750 XT is based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm process, while the R9 M395X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. This represents a significant generational leap, with the newer card also having a much higher transistor density (51.3M / mm²) compared to the older one (13.7M / mm²).

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

A: Yes, the production status for both the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X is listed as "End-of-life" in the data. They are no longer in active production, although they may still be available through third-party sellers.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The RX 6750 XT offers 50% more memory capacity and significantly higher bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, a significant redesign from the older GCN (Graphics Core Next) lineage. This is evident in its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the R9 M395X's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RDNA 2.0 architecture introduces dedicated ray tracing cores (40 on the RX 6750 XT), a feature entirely absent from the GCN 3.0-based R9 M395X, which has no RT cores listed. This is a major functional difference for modern games that utilize ray-traced effects.

The manufacturing process also differs drastically. The RX 6750 XT is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, allowing for 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. In contrast, the R9 M395X uses a 28 nm process, packing only 5,000 million transistors onto a slightly larger 366 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 51.3M / mm² for the new card versus 13.7M / mm² for the old, explaining how the RX 6750 XT can have significantly more shading units (2,560 vs. 2,048) and TMUs (160 vs. 128) while consuming more power (250 W vs. 75 W) but delivering vastly higher performance in most metrics.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a clear generational upgrade path. The RX 6750 XT boasts a base clock of 2150 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, while the R9 M395X has no base or boost clock data listed, only a memory clock. The memory subsystems are entirely different: the RX 6750 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with only 160.0 GB/s. This difference in bandwidth is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

The compute capabilities are also starkly contrasted. The RX 6750 XT delivers 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 and 26.62 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), whereas the R9 M395X manages just 2.961 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The pixel rate of the RX 6750 XT is 166.4 GPixel/s, over seven times higher than the R9 M395X's 23.14 GPixel/s. The R9 M395X is a mobile MXM module with no power connectors and is "Portable Device Dependent" for its display outputs, while the RX 6750 XT is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 600 W power supply and featuring 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6750 XT is the clear winner for any modern, graphics-intensive workload. Its massive lead in Geekbench Metal (304.2%) and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 make it the superior choice for contemporary gaming, especially with ray tracing enabled. Its 12 GB VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth also make it better suited for high-resolution textures and future game releases. The high pixel and texture rates (166.4 GPixel/s and 416.0 GTexel/s, respectively) ensure it can handle demanding resolutions and visual effects without bottlenecking.

The R9 M395X's only victory comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it outperforms the RX 6750 XT by 8.2%. This suggests that for specific legacy OpenCL compute applications, the older GCN architecture may still have relevance. However, this is a narrow use case. The R9 M395X's lower TDP of 75 W and MXM form factor might make it suitable for certain portable or embedded systems, but its lack of modern API support and limited 8 GB GDDR5 memory make it a poor choice for any current gaming or high-performance computing scenario. In essence, the RX 6750 XT is for users who want modern features and high performance, while the R9 M395X is a legacy part with a niche advantage in a single compute benchmark.