AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA GeForce 9300 SE
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M295X and NVIDIA GeForce 9300 SE 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: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M295X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 34% higher core clock speed: 723 MHz vs 540 MHz
- 21.4x more texture fill rate: 92.54 GTexel / s vs 4.32 GTexel / s
- 256x more pipelines: 2048 vs 8
- 142.4x better floating-point performance: 2,961 gflops vs 20.8 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 62.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5150 vs 82
- 2.4x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 832 vs 344
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 23 November 2014 vs 1 June 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz vs 540 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 GTexel / s vs 4.32 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2048 vs 8 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,961 gflops vs 20.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 vs 82 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 vs 344 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M295X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9300 SE
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | NVIDIA GeForce 9300 SE |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 | 82 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 | 344 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 26840 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.777 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 820.138 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.142 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.754 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 386.418 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2045 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3144 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2045 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3144 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 M295X | NVIDIA GeForce 9300 SE | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Amethyst | G98 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 23 November 2014 | 1 June 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 496 | 499 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 540 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,961 gflops | 20.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 2048 | 8 |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 GTexel / s | 4.32 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | |
| Transistor count | 5,000 million | 210 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
| DirectX | Not Listed | 10.0 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB / s | 6.4 GB / s |
| Memory type | Not Listed | DDR2 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
