AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 and AMD Radeon R9 M395X represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The RTX 3090, an Ampere-based flagship from 2020, and the R9 M395X, a GCN 3.0 mobile part from 2015, share only their end-of-life production status. The data shows a generational chasm in performance, features, and power characteristics, with the RTX 3090 dominating the single head-to-head benchmark available, yet the R9 M395X holds a surprising edge in its percentile ranking relative to all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 compare to the AMD Radeon R9 M395X in raw compute performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 points, which is 869% higher than the R9 M395X's 17,829 points. This translates to the RTX 3090 delivering nearly 9.7 times the compute performance of the older AMD part.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The RTX 3090 features 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 936.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s. The RTX 3090's bandwidth is 5.85 times higher.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M395X holds a 71st percentile ranking, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 sits at the 73rd percentile. Despite the massive performance gap, the R9 M395X is only two percentile points behind, reflecting the benchmark database's inclusion of many lower-end mobile and integrated parts.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD Radeon R9 M395X outperforms the RTX 3090?

A: No. In the only head-to-head benchmark recorded (Geekbench OpenCL), the RTX 3090 is the clear winner. The R9 M395X has no wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the RTX 3090 has 1 win.

Q: What are the architectural differences regarding ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The RTX 3090 includes 82 dedicated ray tracing cores and 328 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the R9 M395X, which lists null for both. The R9 M395X's GCN 3.0 architecture predates these specialized hardware units.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX 3090 has an average benchmark score of 27,565, while the R9 M395X has an average of 25,891. The RTX 3090 is ahead by 1,674 points, but its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT, is within 0.5% of its score.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for most users: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is the superior performer by every measurable metric. Its 869% lead in OpenCL compute, 24 GB of GDDR6X memory, and 936.2 GB/s bandwidth make it a far more capable card for demanding workloads. The RTX 3090 also brings modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores, which are absent from the R9 M395X. For any application requiring high-end compute, large memory pools, or contemporary graphics APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate, the RTX 3090 is the only rational selection.

However, the AMD Radeon R9 M395X should not be dismissed outright for specific niche scenarios. Its 75 W TDP and MXM Module form factor indicate a design for portable or compact systems where power and space are at a premium. The RTX 3090, with a 350 W TDP and triple-slot width, is a desktop-only part requiring a 750 W power supply. If the constraint is a legacy MXM-based laptop chassis with a 75 W power budget, the R9 M395X is the only viable option between the two. The data also shows the R9 M395X's 71st percentile ranking is only marginally below the RTX 3090's 73rd, suggesting that in the broader context of all GPUs, the old AMD part still holds its own against many contemporaries.

For pure performance, the RTX 3090 wins decisively. For a specific legacy mobile form factor, the R9 M395X is the functional choice. There is no scenario where the R9 M395X beats the RTX 3090 in any head-to-head benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head test is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 172,758 points against the AMD Radeon R9 M395X's 17,829 points. The deltaPct is 869%, meaning the RTX 3090 is 869% faster than the R9 M395X. This is not a marginal victory; it is an order-of-magnitude difference. The RTX 3090's FP32 throughput of 35.58 TFLOPS versus the R9 M395X's 2.961 TFLOPS explains this gap, as does the 5.85x difference in memory bandwidth.

The R9 M395X's only recorded benchmark is a Geekbench Metal score of 33,953, which has no corresponding RTX 3090 result for direct comparison. The RTX 3090 also has no Metal benchmark, so cross-platform API performance cannot be directly assessed. In terms of wins, the RTX 3090 takes 1 win and the R9 M395X has 0 wins. The average benchmark scores reflect this, with the RTX 3090 at 27,565 and the R9 M395X at 25,891, though the averages are closer than the OpenCL result would suggest, likely due to the different benchmark suites each card was subjected to.

The RTX 3090's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (0.5% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (0.5% ahead), and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (1% behind). The R9 M395X's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1% ahead), AMD FirePro D700 (0.2% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.6% behind). These comparisons show that while the RTX 3090 is in a different performance class than the R9 M395X, both cards are tightly clustered with their respective contemporary peers.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X memory versus the R9 M395X's 8 GB of GDDR5. Memory bandwidth is 936.2 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. The bus width is 384-bit versus 256-bit. The RTX 3090's memory clock is 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective), while the R9 M395X's is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The core configuration is starkly different. The RTX 3090 has 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 3090 also has 82 RT cores and 328 tensor cores; the R9 M395X has none. Pixel rate is 189.8 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 556.0 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 35.58 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics diverge completely. The RTX 3090 has a 350 W TDP, triple-slot width, and a 1x 12-pin power connector, requiring a 750 W suggested PSU. The R9 M395X has a 75 W TDP, is an MXM Module, has no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The RTX 3090 measures 336 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width, while the R9 M395X has no listed dimensions. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 3090 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M395X. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX 3090, versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the R9 M395X.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is foundational. The RTX 3090 uses the GA102 chip on a Samsung 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, for a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip on a TSMC 28 nm process, with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, for a density of 13.7M per mm². The RTX 3090's architecture is Ampere, part of the GeForce 30 generation, while the R9 M395X uses GCN 3.0, from the Gem System (R9 M300) generation.

The RTX 3090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX 3090's feature set includes dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores for AI workloads, which are entirely absent from the R9 M395X. The RTX 3090 also has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio at 35.58 TFLOPS each, while the R9 M395X also has a 1:1 ratio but at 2.961 TFLOPS. The R9 M395X's predecessor is "Solar System" and its successor is "Polaris Mobile", while the RTX 3090's predecessor is GeForce 20 and successor is GeForce 40. Release dates are 2020-08-31 for the RTX 3090 and 2015-05-04 for the R9 M395X. The RTX 3090's launch MSRP is 1,499 USD; the R9 M395X has no launch MSRP listed.