AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro 575 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 Pro 575
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 52% higher core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 723 MHz
- Around 52% higher texture fill rate: 140.8 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
- Around 52% better floating-point performance: 4,506 gflops vs 2,961 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.1x lower typical power consumption: 120 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Around 29% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 34797 vs 26942
- Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 86.154 vs 65.777
- Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1090.128 vs 820.138
- Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.88 vs 7.142
- Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 98.349 vs 68.754
- Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 539.686 vs 386.418
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2814 vs 2045
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 3144
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2814 vs 2045
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 3144
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 5 June 2017 vs 23 November 2014 |
Core clock speed | 1096 MHz vs 723 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 140.8 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s |
Floating-point performance | 4,506 gflops vs 2,961 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 34797 vs 26942 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 86.154 vs 65.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1090.128 vs 820.138 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.88 vs 7.142 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.349 vs 68.754 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 539.686 vs 386.418 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2814 vs 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 3144 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2814 vs 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 3144 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 575
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 Pro 575 | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 34797 | 26942 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 86.154 | 65.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1090.128 | 820.138 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.88 | 7.142 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.349 | 68.754 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 539.686 | 386.418 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9613 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2814 | 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3144 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9613 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2814 | 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3144 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Pro 575 | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |
Code name | Polaris 20 | Amethyst |
Launch date | 5 June 2017 | 23 November 2014 |
Place in performance rating | 497 | 499 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 723 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 4,506 gflops | 2,961 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2048 | 2048 |
Texture fill rate | 140.8 GTexel / s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt | 250 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,700 million | 5,000 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Length | 241 mm | |
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 | 4 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 217.6 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 6800 MHz | |
Memory type | GDDR5 | Not Listed |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
ZeroCore |