Radeon R9 295X2 vs Pro W5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5500 with Radeon R9 295X2, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5500 outperforms R9 295X2 by a minimal 2% 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 | 294 | 303 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.41 | 2.15 |
| Power efficiency | 13.10 | 3.21 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Vesuvius |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $1,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W5500 has 617% better value for money than R9 295X2.
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 cores | 1408 | 2816 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1187 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1018 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 6,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 500 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 123.2 | 179.2 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.942 TFLOPS | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | 88 | 176 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 704 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 307 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2 x 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 512 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 640 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.04 | 20.62 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 29 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 500 Watt |
Pro W5500 has a 2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro W5500 and Radeon R9 295X2.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5500 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 295X2 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.
