RTX A2000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 295X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
255 OEM 260 OEM 270 270 1024SP 270X 280 280X 280X2 285 290 290X 290X2 295X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A4 Mobile A1000 Mobile A1000 Mobile 6 GB A2000 Max-Q A2000 Max-Q 8 GB A2000 Mobile A2000 Mobile 8 GB

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 295X2
2014, $1,499
8 GB GDDR5, 500 Watt
21.08

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms R9 295X2 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 295X2 R9 295X2
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking301280
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.22no data
Power efficiency3.2518.35
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameVesuviusGA107
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 April 2014 (12 years ago)12 April 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 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 cores2816 ×22560
Core clock speedno data1215 MHz
Boost clock speed1018 MHz1687 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)500 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate179.2 ×2135.0
Floating-point processing power5.733 TFLOPS ×28.637 TFLOPS
ROPs64 ×248
TMUs176 ×280
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20
L1 Cache704 KB2.5 MB
L2 Cache1024 KB2 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length307 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB ×24 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit ×2128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth640 GB/s ×2192.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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.

R9 295X2 21.08
RTX A2000 Mobile 22.64
+7.4%

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.

R9 295X2 8816
Samples: 546
RTX A2000 Mobile 9474
+7.5%
Samples: 1791

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 295X2 21197
+61.1%
RTX A2000 Mobile 13157

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 HD70−75
−12.9%
79
+12.9%
1440p35−40
−20%
42
+20%
4K35−40
−8.6%
38
+8.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p21.41no data
1440p42.83no data
4K42.83no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 62
+0%
62
+0%
Far Cry 5 96
+0%
96
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+0%
50
+0%
Dota 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Far Cry 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 96
+0%
96
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%
Dota 2 129
+0%
129
+0%
Far Cry 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+0%
50
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+0%
50
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+0%
44
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how R9 295X2 and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 13% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 20% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 9% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 21.08 22.64
Recency 29 April 2014 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 500 Watt 95 Watt

R9 295X2 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 426% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 295X2 and RTX A2000 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 is a desktop graphics card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

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

R9 295X2 Radeon R9 295X2
vs
R9 390 Radeon R9 390
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile
vs
RTX A1000 Mobile RTX A1000 Mobile
R9 295X2 Radeon R9 295X2
vs
RX 580 Radeon RX 580
R9 295X2 AMD R9 295X2
vs
FirePro W4300 W4300
R9 295X2 AMD R9 295X2
vs
Riva TNT TNT
R9 295X2 AMD R9 295X2
vs
Vega Frontier Edition Liquid Frontier Edition Liquid
R9 295X2 AMD R9 295X2
vs
Radeon 540 540
R9 295X2 AMD R9 295X2
vs
Pro 5600M 5600M
R9 295X2 AMD R9 295X2
vs
Arc B370 B370
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
HD 6450 OEM 6450 OEM
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
ATI HD 4570 4570
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
6600 VE 6600 VE
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
GeForce4 MX 4000 PCI 4000 PCI

Community ratings

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

3.6 105 votes

Rate Radeon R9 295X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 136 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 295X2 or RTX A2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.