Radeon Pro Vega II vs R9 M295X

Place in the ranking	388	102
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	17.25
Power efficiency	3.68	5.87
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Amethyst	Vega 20
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	23 November 2014 (10 years ago)	3 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	2048	4096
Core clock speed	723 MHz	1574 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1720 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	13,230 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	475 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	440.3
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	14.09 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	128	256

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
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	Apple MPX
Width	no data	Quad-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	Not Listed	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	0 MB	32 GB
Memory bus width	Not Listed	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	806 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	825.3 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	1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	Not Listed	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.7
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	2.1
Vulkan	-	1.3
Mantle	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 M295X 13.04

Pro Vega II 39.50
+203%

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 M295X 5150

Pro Vega II 15596
+203%

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	47 −198%	140−150 +198%
4K	29 −193%	85−90 +193%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	15.71
4K	no data	25.87

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −188%	75−80 +188%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −195%	130−140 +195%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −188%	75−80 +188%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −196%	160−170 +196%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −186%	100−105 +186%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −197%	110−120 +197%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −188%	95−100 +188%
Valorant	50−55 −196%	160−170 +196%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −195%	130−140 +195%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −188%	75−80 +188%
Dota 2	45−50 −192%	140−150 +192%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −200%	150−160 +200%
Fortnite	75−80 −203%	230−240 +203%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −196%	160−170 +196%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −186%	100−105 +186%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 −192%	140−150 +192%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −197%	110−120 +197%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 −196%	290−300 +196%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −188%	95−100 +188%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	39 −182%	110−120 +182%
Valorant	50−55 −196%	160−170 +196%
World of Tanks	170−180 −179%	500−550 +179%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −195%	130−140 +195%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −188%	75−80 +188%
Dota 2	45−50 −192%	140−150 +192%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −200%	150−160 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −196%	160−170 +196%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −186%	100−105 +186%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 −196%	290−300 +196%
Valorant	50−55 −196%	160−170 +196%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −188%	300−310 +188%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
World of Tanks	90−95 −198%	280−290 +198%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −196%	80−85 +196%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −190%	90−95 +190%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −197%	95−100 +197%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −186%	60−65 +186%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −186%	80−85 +186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −178%	50−55 +178%
Valorant	30−35 −188%	95−100 +188%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Dota 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −182%	110−120 +182%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Dota 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −194%	50−55 +194%
Fortnite	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Valorant	14−16 −186%	40−45 +186%

This is how R9 M295X and Pro Vega II compete in popular games:

Pro Vega II is 198% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega II is 193% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.04	39.50
Recency	23 November 2014	3 June 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	475 Watt

R9 M295X has 90% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has a 202.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

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

Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X is a notebook card while Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.