AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data gives a clear verdict: the NVIDIA A2 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and in one test it wins by a very large margin. The A2 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 35,357 against the Radeon R9 M295X's 22,858, a delta of 54.7%. That is not a narrow edge; it is a commanding lead that places the A2 in a different performance tier for compute workloads exposed through OpenCL. The R9 M295X, by contrast, trails badly here, and its average benchmark score reflects that weakness.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors the A2. NVIDIA's card scores 34,023 while the AMD part manages 29,091, a 17% delta. This narrower gap suggests that when both architectures are pushed through a modern graphics API, the older GCN 3.0 design can close some of the distance, but it still cannot overtake the Ampere-based A2. Across the two shared tests, the A2 wins 2, the R9 M295X wins 0.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the same story. The A2 sits at 34,690, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R9 M295X averages 28,580, which puts it in the 74th percentile. The 6,110-point gap between their averages is substantial, and it aligns with the head-to-head OpenCL result, where the A2's advantage is most pronounced.

Looking at the A2's nearest rivals in the database, its average score of 34,690 is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB (34,561), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541), 1% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355), and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207). These are small deltas, meaning the A2 slots into a tightly packed cluster of GPUs with similar average performance. The R9 M295X, meanwhile, sits among different company: its 28,580 average is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (28,421), 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 570 (28,766), 1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874), and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996). Note that the delta percentages for the R9 M295X's rivals are negative from the rival's perspective, meaning the R9 M295X is actually slightly behind each of those four cards.

The data also shows where the R9 M295X has a unique data point that the A2 lacks. The AMD card has a Geekbench Metal score of 33,790, which is its best recorded result across any test. The A2 has no Metal score in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there. However, the R9 M295X's Metal result is higher than its Vulkan and OpenCL scores, indicating that Apple's Metal API is a favorable path for this architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A2 wins decisively with a score of 35,357 versus the R9 M295X's 22,858, a 54.7% advantage.

Q: How close is the Vulkan result?

A: The A2 scores 34,023 against 29,091 for the R9 M295X, a 17% delta. It is a clear win for the A2, but far narrower than the OpenCL gap.

Q: Does the R9 M295X win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The R9 M295X has zero wins in the head-to-head comparisons. It does record a Geekbench Metal score of 33,790, but the A2 has no Metal score to compare against.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The A2 is in the 79th percentile with an average benchmark score of 34,690. The R9 M295X is in the 74th percentile with an average score of 28,580.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture rate?

A: The R9 M295X has a texture rate of 92.54 GTexel/s, which is higher than the A2's 70.80 GTexel/s, despite the A2's overall benchmark wins.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The A2 packs 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the R9 M295X achieves 13.7 million per square millimeter on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A2 wins on raw compute throughput in the benchmarks that matter most for general GPU workloads. Its FP32 output of 4.531 TFLOPS is significantly higher than the R9 M295X's 2.961 TFLOPS, and that advantage shows up directly in the OpenCL and Vulkan results. The A2 also has a much higher pixel rate, 56.64 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, meaning it can fill pixels more than twice as fast. For workloads that rely on pixel fill, such as high-resolution rendering or heavy post-processing, the A2 is the stronger choice. Memory bandwidth also favors the A2, with 200.1 GB/s against 160.0 GB/s, even though the R9 M295X has a wider 256-bit bus. The A2's GDDR6 memory at 12.5 Gbps effective compensates for the narrower 128-bit interface.

The R9 M295X wins in a few specific hardware metrics, even if it loses the overall benchmark battle. Its texture rate of 92.54 GTexel/s exceeds the A2's 70.80 GTexel/s, so texture-heavy workloads may see relatively better performance on the AMD card. It also has far more shading units, 2,048 versus 1,280, and more texture mapping units, 128 versus 40. These raw resource counts do not translate into benchmark victories in the recorded data, but they indicate a different design orientation, one that throws more parallel hardware at the problem rather than relying on architectural efficiency.

The R9 M295X also has a Metal benchmark score of 33,790, which is its strongest recorded result. If a workload runs through Metal, the AMD card demonstrates it can reach performance levels closer to the A2's Vulkan and OpenCL numbers. The A2 has no Metal data, so for Metal-specific environments, the R9 M295X is the only one of the two with evidence of capability.

For power-constrained environments, the A2 is the clear winner. Its TDP is 60 W versus the R9 M295X's 250 W, and the A2 requires only a 250 W suggested power supply while the AMD card lists no suggested PSU at all. The A2 is also a single-slot card with no power connectors, whereas the R9 M295X is an MXM module. In any scenario where thermal or power budgets are tight, the A2's efficiency advantage is decisive.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The A2 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. Memory capacity is a 4x difference in favor of the A2, while the R9 M295X's wider bus cannot overcome its older memory type and lower effective speed of 5 Gbps versus 12.5 Gbps.

The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M295X has more shading units and TMUs, while ROP counts are equal at 32. The A2's pixel rate of 56.64 GPixel/s is higher despite the equal ROP count, a result of its much higher clock speeds. The A2 runs at a base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, while the R9 M295X lists no base or boost clocks in the database.

The A2 includes 10 ray tracing cores and 40 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the R9 M295X. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 4.531 TFLOPS on the A2 with a 1:1 ratio, while the R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS for both with the same 1:1 ratio. Power consumption differs dramatically: 60 W for the A2 versus 250 W for the R9 M295X. The A2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 as its bus interface, while the R9 M295X uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the A2 has no outputs, while the R9 M295X's outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA A2 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It integrates 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The R9 M295X uses AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture with the Amethyst chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 5,000 million transistors on a much larger 366 mm² die, yielding a density of just 13.7 million per square millimeter. The A2's newer process node nearly triples the transistor density, which explains how it delivers higher compute performance while consuming far less power.

The A2 belongs to the Workstation Ampere generation, with its production status listed as end-of-life. Its predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. The R9 M295X belongs to the Gem System generation within the R9 M200 series, also end-of-life. Its predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The A2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The A2's DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes features that the older GCN 3.0 architecture cannot offer, such as hardware ray tracing via its 10 RT cores and tensor acceleration via its 40 tensor cores.

The memory architectures reflect the generational gap. The A2 uses GDDR6 with a 1563 MHz memory clock and 12.5 Gbps effective data rate, while the R9 M295X uses GDDR5 at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. The A2's memory system delivers higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus, and its 16 GB capacity is four times the R9 M295X's 4 GB. The release dates also show the gap: the A2 launched on November 9, 2021, while the R9 M295X launched on November 22, 2014, a difference of roughly seven years in the database timeline.

The form factors differ sharply. The A2 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and no display outputs, designed for compute-oriented installations. The R9 M295X is an MXM module with portable device dependent display outputs, indicating its target market was laptops and compact mobile systems. The A2's suggested PSU is 250 W, while the R9 M295X lists none.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA A2 is the superior GPU according to every benchmark measurement in the database. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a 54.7% advantage in OpenCL and a 17% advantage in Vulkan, and posts a 6,110 points higher average benchmark score with a 79th percentile ranking. Data shows it achieves 4.531 TFLOPS FP32 performance, has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, and does so within a 60 W TDP with a single-slot footprint and no power connectors. For any workload exposed through OpenCL or Vulkan, the A2 is the clear pick. For anyone needing ray tracing cores, tensor cores, high pixel rate, high memory capacity, modern API support, or efficiency, the A2 is the only option that provides them.

The R9 M295X retains a niche for texture-heavy workloads, given its 92.54 GTexel/s texture rate and 128 TMUs, and it has a recorded Metal score of 33,790 that the A2 cannot match because the A2 has no Metal result. Its 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs are higher raw counts than the A2's 1,280 and 40. But those advantages do not appear in any winning benchmark result. The R9 M295X loses the OpenCL test by a massive margin and loses Vulkan by a solid 17%. Its 250 W TDP and older 28 nm process with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die put it at a fundamental efficiency disadvantage.

Who should pick which? Choose the NVIDIA A2 for compute performance, memory capacity, modern architecture features, and power efficiency. Choose the AMD Radeon R9 M295X only in scenarios where the Metal API is required, where texture throughput is the dominant workload, or where an MXM form factor is necessary. The benchmark data, the architecture differences, and the efficiency metrics all point the same way: the A2 is the stronger part.