AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and AMD Radeon R9 M395X occupy opposite ends of the workstation and mobile graphics spectrum. The RTX 8000 is a professional Turing-based behemoth designed for massive compute workloads, while the R9 M395X is a mobile GCN 3.0 part aimed at laptops. Benchmark results show a single head-to-head test, with the NVIDIA card dominating by a margin of 471.4%. The average benchmark scores place the RTX 8000 at 28,421, sitting in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M395X averages 25,891, placing it in the 71st percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous in terms of raw performance: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 101,883 against the AMD Radeon R9 M395X's 17,829. That is a delta of 471.4%, meaning the RTX 8000 delivers over five times the compute throughput in that specific test. This is not a close contest; the RTX 8000 is in a completely different performance tier.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, its place in the market is defined by its form factor and power profile. The R9 M395X is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices where the RTX 8000's dual-slot, 260 W design would be impossible. The RTX 8000's wins are in absolute performance; the R9 M395X's "win" is in mobility and integration, despite lacking a direct benchmark victory.

Where the RTX 8000 excels is in memory-heavy and compute-intensive tasks. Its 48 GB of GDDR6 memory with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the R9 M395X's 8 GB GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s. For rendering large scenes, training neural networks, or handling massive datasets, the RTX 8000's resources are vastly superior. The R9 M395X, with its 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 performance, is suited for lighter workloads like CAD or basic video editing on a laptop.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational and fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, packing 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. It is based on the Turing architecture, which introduces dedicated RT cores (72 of them) and Tensor cores (576 of them). These features enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-driven tasks, which the R9 M395X completely lacks.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip, built on an older 28 nm process at TSMC, with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. It is based on GCN 3.0 architecture. The R9 M395X has no RT cores or Tensor cores. Its FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 at 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1), whereas the RTX 8000 offers FP16 at 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1), indicating a significant advantage in mixed-precision compute. The transistor density also differs: the RTX 8000 achieves 24.7M transistors per mm², while the R9 M395X manages only 13.7M per mm², highlighting the process node advantage.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The RTX 8000 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, while the R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The feature sets diverge further: the RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R9 M395X only supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX 8000 also has a higher pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s vs 23.14 GPixel/s) and texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel/s).

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the clear choice for any workload requiring maximum compute power, massive memory capacity, or modern feature support. Its 471.4% lead in OpenCL over the R9 M395X is decisive. Its 48 GB memory and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the R9 M395X's 8 GB and 160.0 GB/s. If you are working with large-scale simulations, 3D rendering, or AI inference, the RTX 8000 is the only viable option between these two.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X is not without merit, but its role is strictly limited by its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor. It is a mobile part designed for laptops, where the RTX 8000's 260 W TDP and dual-slot cooler are physically impossible. For users needing a discrete GPU in a portable system, the R9 M395X provides 2.961 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. However, benchmark results show it is far behind in raw performance. The RTX 8000's average score of 28,421 places it above the R9 M395X's 25,891, a difference of roughly 9.8%.

Data suggests the RTX 8000 is for professionals with desktop workstations and high-budget rendering farms. The R9 M395X is for laptop users who need moderate graphics acceleration without external power connectors. There is no overlap in their intended use cases. The RTX 8000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (0.6% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (1.4% slower), showing it competes with high-end desktop parts. The R9 M395X's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.6% slower), placing it in the mobile mid-range.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and why does that matter?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5. This matters because the RTX 8000's larger capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle far larger datasets and textures without swapping to system memory, which is critical for professional workloads.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M395X support ray tracing?

A: No. The R9 M395X has no RT cores and no Tensor cores, as it is based on the GCN 3.0 architecture. Only the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 includes 72 RT cores and 576 Tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI processing.

Q: What is the performance difference in the only shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scored 101,883, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X scored 17,829. This results in a 471.4% advantage for the RTX 8000, meaning it is over five times faster in that compute test.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon R9 M395X be used in a desktop PC?

A: The data indicates it is an MXM Module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, with display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent." This strongly suggests it is designed for laptop or proprietary mobile systems, not standard desktop motherboards.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s, which is dramatically higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M395X's 23.14 GPixel/s. This means the RTX 8000 can rasterize with far greater speed, benefiting high-resolution displays.

Q: What are the DirectX support differences?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0). This means the RTX 8000 is compatible with the latest graphics features, including advanced ray tracing APIs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a rout. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 posts a score of 101,883, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X manages just 17,829. The delta is 471.4%, making this the largest performance gap in the comparison. For context, the RTX 8000's average benchmark score across all tests is 28,421, while the R9 M395X averages 25,891. Despite the R9 M395X being closer in average score, the OpenCL test shows a massive gulf in compute capability.

The RTX 8000's OpenCL score of 101,883 is more than five times the R9 M395X's score. This likely stems from the RTX 8000's 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, versus the R9 M395X's 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The memory bandwidth difference (672.0 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s) also plays a role. No other shared benchmarks exist in the data, so this single test defines the head-to-head outcome.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 uses a 12 nm process, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X uses a 28 nm process. The RTX 8000 has 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, versus 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die for the R9 M395X. The base clock for the RTX 8000 is 1395 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz; the R9 M395X lists no base or boost clocks. Memory speeds differ as well: the RTX 8000 runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the R9 M395X runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The NVIDIA card has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Shading units are 4,608 versus 2,048. The RTX 8000 has 288 TMUs and 96 ROPs; the R9 M395X has 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs. The RTX 8000 includes 72 RT cores and 576 Tensor cores; the R9 M395X has none. Pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power consumption is another major difference: the RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler and requires a 600 W PSU, using 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The R9 M395X has a 75 W TDP, is an MXM Module, and requires no power connectors. The RTX 8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs, while the R9 M395X's outputs are portable-device dependent. The RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4; the R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates are August 2018 for the RTX 8000 and May 2015 for the R9 M395X.