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
GPU 1
GPU 2
36624
26840
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)
GPU 1
GPU 2
112.64
65.777
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)
GPU 1
GPU 2
1474.586
820.138
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)
GPU 1
GPU 2
9.473
7.142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)
GPU 1
GPU 2
96.618
68.754
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)
GPU 1
GPU 2
507.291
386.418
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3597
2045
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3208
3144
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3597
2045
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)
GPU 1
GPU 2
3208
3144
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