AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs Intel Arc A350M Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M395X and Intel Arc A350M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly seven years of silicon evolution. The R9 M395X is a 2015-era 28nm part with a wide 256-bit memory bus and a massive 366 mm² die, while the Arc A350M is a 2022 6nm design that relies on a smaller, denser chip with higher clock speeds and modern API support. Despite their differences, both land within 1% of each other in aggregate benchmark standing, with the R9 M395X sitting at the 71st percentile and the Arc A350M at the 70th. The data shows a genuine generational clash where older brute-force hardware meets newer efficiency-focused engineering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M395X holds a higher average benchmark score of 25,891, compared to the Intel Arc A350M's 24,647. That is a 5% advantage for the AMD part in overall synthetic performance.

Q: How do they compare in the one benchmark they share?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A350M scores 24,546 against the R9 M395X's 17,829. The Intel part wins by 27.4%, a substantial margin in compute-oriented workloads.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M395X has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 160.0 GB/s, while the Intel Arc A350M achieves 112.0 GB/s. This comes from the R9's 256-bit bus versus the Arc's 64-bit bus, though the Arc uses faster GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc A350M is rated at 25 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X is rated at 75 W TDP. This makes the Intel part three times more power-efficient on paper, a critical factor for mobile designs.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX features?

A: No. The Intel Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), including hardware ray tracing with its 6 RT cores, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X only supports DirectX 12 (12_0) without any ray tracing hardware.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a dramatically higher transistor density at 45.9M transistors per mm², versus the AMD Radeon R9 M395X's 13.7M per mm². This reflects the shift from 28nm to 6nm manufacturing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X uses GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28nm process from TSMC, packing 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die. This is a wide, power-hungry design from the R9 M300 generation, built for high fill rates and raw throughput. The Intel Arc A350M, by contrast, uses Xe-HPG architecture on a 6nm TSMC process, fitting 7,200 million transistors into just 157 mm². That is a 45.9M transistors per mm² density versus the R9's 13.7M, showing how far process technology advanced in seven years.

Core configuration differs sharply. The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Arc A350M has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, but compensates with a much higher boost clock of 2200 MHz versus the R9's unspecified base/boost (memory clock is 1250 MHz / 5 Gbps effective). The Intel part also features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, something the AMD part lacks entirely. Memory architecture is another major split: the R9 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the Arc uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

API support favors the newer Intel part. The Arc A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M395X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel GPU also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface compared to the R9's PCIe 3.0 x16, and it is an integrated-class IGP form factor versus the R9's MXM module. The R9 relies on external power connectors ("None" listed), while the Arc has no connector requirement at all, reflecting its 25 W design versus the R9's 75 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A350M wins in compute-heavy synthetic benchmarks, specifically OpenCL, where it beats the R9 M395X by 27.4%. It also holds an advantage in pixel fill rate, posting 52.80 GPixel/s versus the R9's 23.14 GPixel/s, and in texture fill rate at 105.6 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is higher at 3.379 TFLOPS compared to 2.961 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output doubles to 6.758 TFLOPS thanks to 2:1 ratio, while the R9 is capped at 1:1. The Arc also wins on modern features, with ray tracing support and DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 8 GB of VRAM versus the Arc's 4 GB, and its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the Arc's 112.0 GB/s by roughly 43%. It also has a wider 256-bit bus, which can help in certain memory-bound scenarios. The R9's average benchmark score of 25,891 edges out the Arc's 24,647, placing it at the 71st percentile versus the Arc's 70th. Its nearest rivals in that score range include the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.6% behind), suggesting it holds its own against much newer high-end mobile parts in aggregate.

The R9 also has more shading units and TMUs, which may translate to better performance in older games that rely on raw shader count rather than clock speed or modern optimizations. However, the data shows only one head-to-head benchmark, and the AMD part loses that one decisively, so its wins are inferred from specifications and aggregate scores rather than direct comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | Intel Arc A350M |

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

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Boost Clock | N/A (memory: 1250 MHz) | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 128 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| RT Cores | None | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 105.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.961 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the Intel Arc A350M. The Arc scores 24,546 against the R9 M395X's 17,829, a 27.4% advantage. This is a significant margin that reflects the Arc's higher clock speeds and modern architecture. The R9's lower OpenCL score is notable given its larger memory bus and higher bandwidth, suggesting that raw memory throughput does not compensate for the compute efficiency of the newer Xe-HPG design.

Looking at aggregate performance, the R9 M395X pulls ahead in average benchmark score with 25,891 versus 24,647, a 5% edge. This aggregate includes multiple test types, not just OpenCL, which may favor the R9's wider memory interface in other workloads. The R9's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W7100 at 25,856 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT at 26,011 (0.5% behind), placing it in the mid-range desktop class. The Arc A350M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 at 24,744 (0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24,763 (0.5% behind), showing it competes with older desktop cards and professional mobile parts.

In fill rate, the Intel part wins decisively. The Arc's 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate is more than double the R9's 23.14 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s exceeds the R9's 92.54 GTexel/s by 14%. The Arc also has higher FP32 throughput at 3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS, an 14% advantage. These numbers suggest that in modern, shader-heavy workloads, the Arc A350M should outperform despite its smaller memory subsystem.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Intel Arc A350M is the better compute and modern-feature GPU, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X retains advantages in memory capacity, bandwidth, and aggregate benchmark score. If you are running OpenCL-based workloads or games that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features and ray tracing, the Arc A350M is the obvious choice — it wins the only head-to-head test by 27.4% and offers hardware ray tracing that the R9 simply cannot match. Its 25 W TDP also makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the R9's 75 W requirement demands a beefier thermal solution.

However, for scenarios where VRAM capacity matters — such as modded games or large textures — the R9 M395X's 8 GB versus the Arc's 4 GB is a meaningful advantage. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus also provide a memory throughput edge that could benefit certain legacy titles or compute tasks that are bandwidth-bound. The R9's higher average benchmark score (25,891 vs 24,647) and 71st percentile ranking versus the Arc's 70th suggest it is slightly more consistent across a broad range of tests, despite losing the one direct comparison.

Choose the Intel Arc A350M for modern API support, ray tracing, compute performance, and efficiency. Choose the AMD Radeon R9 M395X if you need more VRAM and memory bandwidth, or if your workload does not benefit from the Arc's architectural advantages. The benchmark results indicate the Arc is the more future-proof part, but the R9 remains relevant for specific memory-hungry use cases. Both are end-of-life products, so availability and driver maturity should factor into any practical decision.