Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition with Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 M295X Mac Edition
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
12.35

RTX 3000 Max-Q outperforms R9 M295X Mac Edition by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking436313
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.7924.94
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameAmethystTU106
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 November 2014 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 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 cores20482304
Core clock speed850 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1215 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate108.8175.0
Floating-point processing power3.482 TFLOPS5.599 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs128144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36
L1 Cache512 KB2.3 MB
L2 Cache512 KB4 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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1362 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth174.3 GB/s448.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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 HD45−50
−64.4%
74
+64.4%
1440p27−30
−66.7%
45
+66.7%
4K18−20
−66.7%
30
+66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 87
+0%
87
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 126
+0%
126
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85
+0%
85
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 97
+0%
97
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+0%
52
+0%
Valorant 103
+0%
103
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 76
+0%
76
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how R9 M295X Mac Edition and RTX 3000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Max-Q is 64% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Max-Q is 67% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3000 Max-Q is 67% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.35 19.49
Recency 23 November 2014 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 60 Watt

RTX 3000 Max-Q has a 57.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q 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 Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q 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 R9 M295X Mac Edition
Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

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.


2.8 6 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 53 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition or Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.