AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 152,423 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X scores 17,829 points. That is a delta of 88.3% in favor of the RTX 3080, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers roughly 8.5 times the raw compute throughput in this workload. No other overlapping tests exist between the two, so this single measurement carries the entire head-to-head comparison.

The RTX 3080 also holds a wider benchmark portfolio in the database. It records results across 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench Vulkan, Passmark DX9 through DX12, Passmark G2D, Passmark G3D, and Passmark GPU Compute. The R9 M395X only has Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL entries. The Metal score of 33,953 for the AMD part is not directly comparable to any RTX 3080 result, since the database does not list a Metal score for the NVIDIA GPU. Still, the OpenCL gap is so large that it dominates the performance narrative.

Average benchmark scores tell a similar story, though the gap narrows because the averages include different test sets. The R9 M395X has an average benchmark score of 25,891, while the RTX 3080 averages 23,172. This appears counterintuitive given the OpenCL result, but the averages are not normalized across identical workloads. The R9 M395X sits at the 71st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 3080 sits at the 68th percentile. These percentile ranks are close, yet the head-to-head OpenCL delta reveals the true performance separation in a shared test. The R9 M395X's nearest rivals by average score include the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856, delta 0.1%), the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (26,011, delta -0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, delta 0.6%). The RTX 3080's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, delta -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23,276, delta -0.4%). These rival lists show that both GPUs cluster with very different hardware generations in average-score terms, but the OpenCL head-to-head cuts through the noise.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only shared benchmark in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 152,423 points versus 17,829 for the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, a delta of 88.3%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The R9 M395X has a higher average at 25,891 versus 23,172 for the RTX 3080. The R9 M395X also ranks higher in the database at the 71st percentile, while the RTX 3080 sits at the 68th percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival to each GPU by average score?

A: For the R9 M395X, the AMD FirePro W7100 is closest with an average score of 25,856 and a delta of 0.1%. For the RTX 3080, the NVIDIA P106-100 is closest with an average score of 23,249 and a delta of -0.3%.

Q: Does the RTX 3080 have ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes. The RTX 3080 includes 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores. The R9 M395X lists no ray tracing or tensor core counts in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus with 760.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The RTX 3080 leads in both. Its pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 465.1 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Amethyst, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 uses the Ampere architecture on the GA102 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 28,300 million transistors across a 628 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The density difference is stark: the RTX 3080 crams more than three times as many transistors per square millimeter.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 3080 also adds 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the GCN 3.0 design. Floating-point performance reflects this: the R9 M395X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the RTX 3080 delivers 29.77 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (also 1:1). The RTX 3080 has ten times the FP32 throughput.

Memory architecture is another major divergence point. The R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 5 Gbps effective clock and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X with a 19 Gbps effective clock and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth on a 320-bit bus. The RTX 3080's bandwidth advantage is roughly 4.75 times that of the AMD part. API support differs as well. The R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.1. The RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Physical characteristics show a laptop-class versus desktop-class split. The R9 M395X is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a TDP of 75 W, designed for portable devices with display outputs marked as "Portable Device Dependent". The RTX 285 mm long, 112 mm high, 40 mm wide, dual-slot card with a 12-pin power connector, a suggested PSU rating of 700 W, and display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R9 M395X, by contrast, has no listed length, height, width, or suggested PSU data in the database.

Release timing and positioning also differ. The R9 M395X launched on 2015-05-04, while the RTX 3080 launched on 2020-08-31. The R9 M395X belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation and lists its predecessor as Solar System and successor as Polaris Mobile. The RTX 3080 belongs to the GeForce 30-series and lists its predecessor as GeForce 20 and successor as GeForce 40.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for any workload measured in OpenCL: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is overwhelmingly faster in raw compute, with a 88.3% delta over the R9 M395X. The R9 M395X, however, holds a higher average benchmark score in the database (25,891 versus 23,172) and a higher percentile rank (71st versus 68th), which reflects the different test sets each GPU has been subjected to. The R9 M395X is an end-of-life mobile-class part, while the RTX 3080 is an end-of-life desktop-class part with a much larger transistor budget and newer process node.

Buyers or system builders choosing between these two should weigh the RTX 3080's compute dominance and modern feature set against the R9 M395X's lower power draw and mobile form factor. The RTX 3080 requires a 700 W suggested PSU and a dual-slot chassis, whereas the R9 M395X operates at 75 W with no external power connectors. If the workload is compute-heavy and the system can accommodate a desktop card, the RTX 3080 is the clear pick. If the target platform is a portable device with MXM compatibility, the R9 M395X is the only option that fits.

The RTX 3080 also offers ray tracing and tensor cores, which the R9 M395X lacks entirely. For any modern DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4 workload, the RTX 3080 is the only one of the two that can engage those APIs. The R9 M395X tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.1. The verdict is therefore split along form factor and workload lines: the RTX 3080 wins every shared compute test and adds features the AMD part cannot match, while the R9 M395X retains relevance only in power-constrained or mobile contexts.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1440 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1710 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 1188 MHz, 19 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 10 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 760.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 8704 |

| TMUs | 128 | 272 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 68 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 272 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 164.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 465.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.961 TFLOPS | 29.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | 29.77 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 320 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 700 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 285 mm length, 112 mm height, 40 mm width |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2020-08-31 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 20 |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 40 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 699 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins in every shared benchmark category that the database records. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 152,423 dwarfs the R9 M395X's 17,829. It also wins on memory bandwidth (760.3 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s), pixel rate (164.2 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s), texture rate (465.1 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s), and FP32/FP16 throughput (29.77 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS). The RTX 3080 is the only one of the two with ray tracing cores and tensor cores, making it the sole choice for workloads that leverage those features. It also supports a newer PCIe revision (4.0 versus 3.0), a newer DirectX feature level (12_2 versus 12_0), and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170). For desktop builds with sufficient power delivery and cooling, the RTX 3080 wins outright across compute, graphics throughput, and API support.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X wins in portability and power efficiency. Its 75 W TDP and MXM Module form factor allow it to fit into portable devices, while the RTX 3080 requires a dual-slot chassis and a 700 W suggested PSU. The R9 M395X also has no power connectors, simplifying installation in constrained systems. The database shows a higher average benchmark score (25,891 versus 23,172) and a higher percentile rank (71st versus 68th) for the AMD part, though this is likely an artifact of different test sets rather than a true performance advantage. For mobile or low-power applications where the RTX 3080 cannot physically fit, the R9 M395X is the only viable option between the two. For any scenario where performance per watt or footprint matters more than raw compute, the R9 M395X claims the win.