Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition vs Pro Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017, $399
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
28.84
+134%

Pro 56 outperforms R9 M295X Mac Edition by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking223437
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.68no data
Power efficiency10.543.79
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameVega 10Amethyst
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (8 years ago)23 November 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores35842048
Core clock speed1138 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate280.0108.8
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS3.482 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs224128
L1 Cache896 KB512 KB
L2 Cache4 MB512 KB

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1362 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s174.3 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131

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 HD96
+140%
40−45
−140%
4K57
+138%
24−27
−138%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16no data
4K7.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+136%
70−75
−136%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+141%
27−30
−141%
Hogwarts Legacy 60−65
+163%
24−27
−163%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+144%
45−50
−144%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+136%
70−75
−136%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+141%
27−30
−141%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+138%
40−45
−138%
Fortnite 130−140
+147%
55−60
−147%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+156%
45−50
−156%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+166%
35−40
−166%
Hogwarts Legacy 60−65
+163%
24−27
−163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+134%
50−55
−134%
Valorant 180−190
+135%
80−85
−135%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+144%
45−50
−144%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+136%
70−75
−136%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+148%
110−120
−148%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+141%
27−30
−141%
Dota 2 107
+138%
45−50
−138%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+138%
40−45
−138%
Fortnite 130−140
+147%
55−60
−147%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+156%
45−50
−156%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+166%
35−40
−166%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+160%
40−45
−160%
Hogwarts Legacy 60−65
+163%
24−27
−163%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+148%
27−30
−148%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+134%
50−55
−134%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+158%
45−50
−158%
Valorant 180−190
+135%
80−85
−135%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+144%
45−50
−144%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+141%
27−30
−141%
Dota 2 102
+155%
40−45
−155%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+138%
40−45
−138%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+156%
45−50
−156%
Hogwarts Legacy 60−65
+163%
24−27
−163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+134%
50−55
−134%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+137%
27−30
−137%
Valorant 180−190
+135%
80−85
−135%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+147%
55−60
−147%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+148%
27−30
−148%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+142%
85−90
−142%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+138%
24−27
−138%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+150%
70−75
−150%
Valorant 220−230
+137%
95−100
−137%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80
+163%
30−33
−163%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+152%
27−30
−152%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+160%
30−33
−160%
Hogwarts Legacy 30−35
+136%
14−16
−136%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+143%
30−33
−143%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+163%
16−18
−163%
Valorant 170−180
+135%
75−80
−135%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+156%
18−20
−156%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Dota 2 96
+140%
40−45
−140%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and R9 M295X Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is 140% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 138% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.84 12.35
Recency 14 August 2017 23 November 2014
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 250 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 133.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 19% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
AMD Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 93 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 6 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 56 or Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.