AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two mobile graphics solutions is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 117,866 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X manages 17,829 points. That translates to an 84.9% deficit for the older AMD part—a staggering margin that places the two GPUs in entirely different performance strata. The NVIDIA part delivers roughly 6.6 times the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload, which is not a marginal generational gain but a complete overhaul of what a mobile GPU can accomplish.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average benchmark score for the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is 25,740, while the R9 M395X sits at 25,891. Interestingly, the aggregate scores are nearly identical—the AMD part is actually 0.6% ahead in this metric. This apparent contradiction with the OpenCL result underscores how differently these GPUs perform across varied workloads. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's benchmark suite includes 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,869 points), Passmark G3D (19,288 points), and Passmark GPU Compute (8,471 points), whereas the R9 M395X only has Geekbench Metal (33,953 points) and Geekbench OpenCL to its name. The NVIDIA part shows particular strength in DirectX 9 legacy tests (201 points on Passmark) and DirectX 11 (164 points), while its DirectX 12 Passmark score of 88 suggests some workloads may not scale linearly with raw specs.

Both GPUs occupy the 71st percentile against all recorded GPUs, a coincidence that speaks to the shifting baseline of GPU performance over time. The R9 M395X's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1% ahead), AMD FirePro D700 (0.2% ahead), and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (0.5% behind). For the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (0.1% ahead), AMD FirePro D700 (0.4% behind), and AMD Radeon RX 6700M (0.4% ahead). This clustering suggests that in overall benchmark averages, both cards land in a similar performance neighborhood—but the specific workload matters enormously.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting nearly seven years of silicon evolution. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, by contrast, uses the GA103 chip on Ampere architecture, built on Samsung's 8 nm process. This newer node allows 22,000 million transistors—4.4 times more—on a 496 mm² die, achieving 44.4 million transistors per square millimeter. That is a 3.2x improvement in transistor density, a direct consequence of the process node shrink.

The compute configuration differences are equally dramatic. The R9 M395X fields 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile counters with 7,424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 96 ROPs—roughly 3.6x, 1.8x, and 3x more, respectively. Critically, the NVIDIA part introduces hardware that the AMD card simply does not have: 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. These dedicated units enable features that are entirely absent from the older GCN architecture, from hardware-accelerated ray tracing to AI-driven DLSS upscaling.

Memory subsystems tell a similar story of generational progress. The R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile doubles capacity to 16 GB of GDDR6, keeps the 256-bit bus, but runs memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) to achieve 512.0 GB/s—triple the bandwidth. This memory bandwidth advantage alone could explain significant performance differences in texture-heavy or large-dataset workloads.

Clock behavior also differs fundamentally. The AMD part lists no base or boost clock in the data, only memory clocks, suggesting either a fixed clock design or incomplete reporting. The NVIDIA part specifies an 810 MHz base clock and 1260 MHz boost clock. Despite the lower clock speeds, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile achieves far higher throughput thanks to its massive shader count and architectural efficiency. Pixel rate tells the story: 121.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 23.14 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 292.3 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 18.71 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS—a 6.3x advantage.

The bus interface also advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the potential host-to-GPU bandwidth. API support reflects the newer architecture: the R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation implies support for ray tracing and mesh shaders, features the older card cannot access.

# Where Each One Wins

The R9 M395X's solitary head-to-head benchmark loss might suggest it has no winning scenarios, but the data tells a more nuanced story. Its average benchmark score of 25,891 actually edges out the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 25,740 by 0.6%. The AMD card's nearest rivals include the FirePro W7100 and FirePro D700, both workstation-class GPUs, suggesting it remains competitive in certain professional compute contexts. Its 75 W TDP—versus the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 115 W—means it draws significantly less power while delivering comparable average benchmark performance. For thin-and-light laptops or systems with limited thermal headroom, the R9 M395X could be the more practical choice despite its age.

The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile wins decisively in raw compute and modern feature support. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 107,502 and OpenCL score of 117,866 demonstrate exceptional compute capability. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,869 indicates strong performance in modern DirectX 12 titles. Passmark G2D score of 818 suggests robust 2D desktop performance, while the G3D score of 19,288 confirms strong 3D rendering capability. The tensor cores enable AI workloads that are simply impossible on the AMD part, and the ray tracing cores allow hardware-accelerated ray-traced lighting in supported games.

For gaming, the choice is clear: the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's combination of 16 GB GDDR6 memory, 512 GB/s bandwidth, and modern architecture delivers the performance needed for high-refresh-rate 1440p or entry-level 4K gaming. The R9 M395X, with its 2015-era GCN architecture, would struggle with modern titles at high settings. However, for legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 workloads, the Passmark scores (201 and 131 respectively for NVIDIA) suggest the newer card handles these gracefully, while the AMD card's DirectX 12 (12_0) support may actually be more limited for older API titles.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M395X has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 25,891 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 25,740, a 0.6% difference.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 117,866 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the R9 M395X's 17,829, making the NVIDIA part 84.9% faster in this specific workload.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes additional features like hardware ray tracing.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6, doubling both capacity and memory type generation.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has 7,424 shading units compared to the R9 M395X's 2,048, giving it roughly 3.6 times more shader processors.

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

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life. The R9 M395X was released in May 2015, and the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile was released in January 2022.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear generational verdict. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is the superior performer in every head-to-head comparison available, with an 84.9% OpenCL advantage that reflects its fundamentally more capable architecture. For any workload that leverages modern APIs, ray tracing, tensor cores, or high-bandwidth memory, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is the only rational choice. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory at 512 GB/s bandwidth, 18.71 TFLOPS FP32 compute, and 58 ray tracing cores place it in a performance class the R9 M395X cannot approach.

However, the data also reveals a surprising statistical equivalence in average benchmark scores. The R9 M395X's 25,891 average actually surpasses the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile's 25,740. This suggests that in certain legacy or compute-heavy workloads—particularly those that favor AMD's GCN architecture—the older card remains competitive. Its 75 W TDP also makes it more power-efficient on paper, which could benefit ultra-portable designs where battery life and thermals take priority over raw performance.

The practical verdict depends on workload. For modern gaming, content creation, or any ray-traced or AI-accelerated application, the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is overwhelmingly superior. For legacy applications, power-constrained systems, or budget-conscious laptop builds where average performance is acceptable, the R9 M395X may still serve a purpose. The 71st percentile ranking for both GPUs against all recorded GPUs is a statistical curiosity that underscores how differently these two parts perform across diverse workloads—the NVIDIA card excels in modern tasks, while the AMD card holds its own in specific legacy scenarios.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 22,000 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 496 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 810 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1260 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,048 | 7,424 |

| TMUs | 128 | 232 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 58 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 232 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 121.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 292.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.961 TFLOPS | 18.71 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | 18.71 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 115 W |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | May 4, 2015 | January 24, 2022 |