Radeon RX 5700 XT vs R9 M295X Mac Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition with Radeon RX 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.
5700 XT outperforms R9 M295X Mac Edition by a whopping 210% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 452 | 139 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 32.25 |
| Power efficiency | 3.85 | 13.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 November 2014 (11 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1605 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1905 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.8 | 304.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.482 TFLOPS | 9.754 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 160 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1362 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 174.3 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Multi Monitor | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 40−45
−68%
| 125 |
| 1440p | 24−27 | 76
+217%
|
| 4K | 14−16 | 47
+236%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.19 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.25 |
| 4K | no data | 8.49 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 175 | 175 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 347 | 347 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78 | 78 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 145 | 145 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 133 | 133 |
| Battlefield 5 | 119 | 119 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 308 | 308 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78 | 78 |
| Far Cry 5 | 138 | 138 |
| Fortnite | 223 | 223 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 155 | 155 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 177 | 177 |
| Valorant | 313 | 313 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 78 | 78 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110 | 110 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 177 | 177 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75 | 75 |
| Dota 2 | 92 | 92 |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 | 130 |
| Fortnite | 179 | 179 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 154 | 154 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 145 | 145 |
| Metro Exodus | 97 | 97 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 166 | 166 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154 | 154 |
| Valorant | 294 | 294 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 105 | 105 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67 | 67 |
| Dota 2 | 103 | 103 |
| Far Cry 5 | 111 | 111 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 148 | 148 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139 | 139 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 93 | 93 |
| Valorant | 159 | 159 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 143 | 143 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105 | 105 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79 | 79 |
| Metro Exodus | 57 | 57 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 286 | 286 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 89 | 89 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40 | 40 |
| Far Cry 5 | 97 | 97 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 119 | 119 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75 | 70−75 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 93 | 93 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28 | 28 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79 | 79 |
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 35 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54 | 54 |
| Valorant | 242 | 242 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60 | 60 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17 | 17 |
| Dota 2 | 93 | 93 |
| Far Cry 5 | 53 | 53 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79 | 79 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53 | 53 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 45 | 45 |
This is how R9 M295X Mac Edition and RX 5700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT is 213% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 XT is 217% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 XT is 236% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.35 | 38.31 |
| Recency | 23 November 2014 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
RX 5700 XT has a 210% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 5700 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
