Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition vs Pro 560X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560X with Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
R9 M295X Mac Edition outperforms Pro 560X by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 465 | 383 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.80 | 3.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 July 2018 (6 years ago) | 23 November 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1004 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 108.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.056 TFLOPS | 3.482 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1362 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 174.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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 | 38
−31.6%
| 50−55
+31.6%
|
| 1440p | 41
−34.1%
| 55−60
+34.1%
|
| 4K | 16
−31.3%
| 21−24
+31.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 36
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| Valorant | 46
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 44
−36.4%
|
60−65
+36.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−31%
|
55−60
+31%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−33.9%
|
75−80
+33.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
−30.4%
|
30−33
+30.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 34
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
| Valorant | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 86
−39.5%
|
120−130
+39.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
−37.7%
|
95−100
+37.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Valorant | 26
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| World of Tanks | 57
−40.4%
|
80−85
+40.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Valorant | 19
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 13
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
This is how Pro 560X and R9 M295X Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- R9 M295X Mac Edition is 32% faster in 1080p
- R9 M295X Mac Edition is 34% faster in 1440p
- R9 M295X Mac Edition is 31% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.57 | 13.45 |
| Recency | 16 July 2018 | 23 November 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 250 Watt |
Pro 560X has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
R9 M295X Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 40.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
