AMD Radeon E9550 MXM vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and AMD Radeon R9 M295X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 55% higher core clock speed: 1120 MHz vs 723 MHz
- Around 97% higher texture fill rate: 182.3 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
- Around 13% higher pipelines: 2304 vs 2048
- Around 97% better floating-point performance: 5,834 gflops vs 2,961 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.6x lower typical power consumption: 95 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Around 36% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 36624 vs 26840
- Around 71% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 vs 65.777
- Around 80% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 vs 820.138
- Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 vs 7.142
- Around 41% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 vs 68.754
- Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 vs 386.418
- Around 76% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3597 vs 2045
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3208 vs 3144
- Around 76% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3597 vs 2045
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3208 vs 3144
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 September 2016 vs 23 November 2014 |
Core clock speed | 1120 MHz vs 723 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 182.3 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2304 vs 2048 |
Floating-point performance | 5,834 gflops vs 2,961 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 vs 26840 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 vs 65.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 vs 820.138 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 vs 7.142 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 vs 68.754 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 vs 386.418 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 vs 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 vs 3144 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 vs 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 vs 3144 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 | 26840 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 | 65.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 | 820.138 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 | 7.142 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 | 68.754 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 | 386.418 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6622 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 | 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 | 3144 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6622 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 | 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 | 3144 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |
Code name | Ellesmere | Amethyst |
Launch date | 27 September 2016 | 23 November 2014 |
Place in performance rating | 495 | 496 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 723 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 5,834 gflops | 2,961 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2304 | 2048 |
Texture fill rate | 182.3 GTexel / s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 250 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,700 million | 5,000 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | Not Listed |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | |
Memory type | GDDR5 | Not Listed |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
ZeroCore |