AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD Radeon RX 9070 are separated by a decade of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The R9 M395X is an end-of-life mobile part from 2015, built on GCN 3.0, while the RX 9070 is an active desktop card from 2025 using RDNA 4.0. Where they overlap—OpenCL compute—the newer card is overwhelmingly faster, but the older card still holds a niche in legacy systems. Below is a data-driven comparison based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark shared between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The RX 9070 scores 131,539, while the R9 M395X scores 17,829. That puts the RX 9070 ahead by 86.4% (the delta is listed as -86.4% from the R9 M395X’s perspective, meaning the older card trails by that margin). In practical terms, the RX 9070 delivers roughly 7.4 times the OpenCL compute performance of the R9 M395X. This is a generational leap, not an incremental one.

The R9 M395X has no other benchmark entries in this dataset, so its only other score is Geekbench Metal at 33,953—a test the RX 9070 does not appear in. The RX 9070, meanwhile, has a broader benchmark profile. Its Passmark G3D score is 25,381, its Passmark GPU Compute score is 14,737, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 6,290. For Vulkan, the RX 9070 posts 58,705 in Geekbench Vulkan. None of these tests are directly comparable to the R9 M395X because the older card lacks results there, but they show the RX 9070’s range across modern APIs.

When looking at average benchmark scores, the R9 M395X actually posts a higher average (25,891) than the RX 9070 (23,877). This is a quirk of the test mix—the R9 M395X’s average includes only two Geekbench tests, while the RX 9070’s includes lower-scoring Passmark DX tests. The R9 M395X’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856, delta 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, delta 0.6%), showing it sits in a mid-range mobile tier. The RX 9070’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (23,628, delta 1.1%) and the RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170, delta -1.2%), meaning its average is similarly clustered. Despite the RX 9070’s massive OpenCL win, its overall average is dragged down by legacy DirectX tests, so take the averages with caution—they measure different workloads.

Architecture Differences

The R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 5,000 million transistors packed into a 366 mm² die. That works out to 13.7 million transistors per mm². Its architecture is GCN 3.0, part of the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. The RX 9070 uses the Navi 48 chip on a 4 nm process, also from TSMC, but with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die—a density of 151.0 million transistors per mm². That is over 11 times the transistor density of the older chip, despite a similar physical die size.

Core counts differ sharply. The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores. The RX 9070 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, plus 56 ray tracing cores. Memory also diverges: the R9 M395X uses 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 9070 uses 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth—over 4 times the memory bandwidth.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The R9 M395X has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RX 9070 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and a boost clock of 2520 MHz, with memory at 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective). The compute rates reflect this: the R9 M395X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.961 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the RX 9070 delivers 36.13 TFLOPS FP32 and 36.13 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). That is a 12.2 times increase in raw FP32 throughput.

Power and connectivity also differ. The R9 M395X is a 75 W MXM module with no power connectors, while the RX 9070 is a 220 W dual-slot card requiring 2x 8-pin power and a 550 W suggested PSU. The bus interface moves from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x16. API support upgrades from DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170 to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 wins every measurable compute and modern graphics scenario in this dataset. Its OpenCL score is 86.4% higher than the R9 M395X, and its FP32 throughput is 12.2 times greater. For any workload that uses OpenCL—scientific compute, video encoding, or AI inference—the RX 9070 is the only rational choice. Its Vulkan score of 58,705 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 6,290 indicate strong modern API performance, and its 56 ray tracing cores give it hardware support for ray-traced effects that the R9 M395X cannot handle at all.

The R9 M395X has one advantage: its average benchmark score of 25,891 is higher than the RX 9070’s 23,877. This is because the R9 M395X’s average draws from Geekbench Metal (33,953) and OpenCL (17,829), both of which scale well on its GCN architecture. The RX 9070’s average is held down by low Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 74 in DX12, 141 in DX10). However, these low Passmark scores likely reflect driver or workload quirks, not real-world gaming performance—the RX 9070 still posts a 25,381 Passmark G3D score, which is the more relevant gaming metric. For legacy DirectX 9/10 workloads, the R9 M395X may be more stable, but it lacks the architectural features to compete in modern titles.

The R9 M395X’s 75 W TDP is a fraction of the RX 9070’s 220 W, making it suitable for thin laptops or MXM-based systems where power and cooling are constrained. It also uses GDDR5 memory, which is simpler to integrate in older platforms. But that is a niche use case, not a performance win.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the superior GPU for virtually every task. Its OpenCL score is 86.4% higher, its FP32 compute is 12.2 times greater, and it offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 8 GB GDDR5, with 4 times the memory bandwidth. It supports ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, all of which are absent or older on the R9 M395X. If you are building a new system or upgrading a desktop, the RX 9070 is the clear pick, provided your PSU can handle 220 W and you have two 8-pin connectors.

The R9 M395X is only relevant if you are repairing a 2015-era laptop with an MXM slot and cannot replace the entire system. Its 75 W power draw and lack of external power connectors make it drop-in compatible with older mobile designs. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,953 shows it can still handle basic macOS-style compute, but its OpenCL score of 17,829 is 86.4% below the RX 9070, so any serious compute task will be painfully slow. For gaming, its 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 is a fraction of the RX 9070’s 36.13 TFLOPS, meaning modern titles will run at low settings, if at all.

Choose the RX 9070 for anything new. Choose the R9 M395X only for legacy hardware maintenance.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 9070 in OpenCL compared to the R9 M395X?

A: The RX 9070 scores 131,539 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R9 M395X scores 17,829. That is a 86.4% lead for the RX 9070.

Q: Does the R9 M395X support ray tracing?

A: No. The R9 M395X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 9070 has 56 RT cores.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 9070 has 644.6 GB/s bandwidth with 16 GB GDDR6, while the R9 M395X has 160.0 GB/s with 8 GB GDDR5.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The R9 M395X is rated at 75 W with no power connectors, while the RX 9070 is rated at 220 W with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R9 M395X has an average score of 25,891, higher than the RX 9070’s 23,877. However, this is due to different test mixes; the RX 9070 wins the shared OpenCL test by 86.4%.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The R9 M395X has 13.7 million transistors per mm² on 28 nm, while the RX 9070 has 151.0 million transistors per mm² on 4 nm.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | AMD Radeon RX 9070 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 53,900 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 357 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 151.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None listed | 1330 MHz |

| Game Clock | None listed | 2070 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 2520 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | 16 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 644.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 128 | 224 |

| ROPs | 32 | 128 |

| RT Cores | None | 56 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 322.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 564.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.961 TFLOPS | 36.13 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | 36.13 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 220 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2025-03-05 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 549 USD |