AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs AMD Radeon R9 280

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD Radeon R9 280 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 - 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M395X

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 2 month(s) later
• Around 14% higher pipelines: 2048 vs 1792
• Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
• Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 vs 665
• Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 vs 365.384
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3354 vs 3337
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3354 vs 3337

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280

• Around 13% higher texture fill rate: 104.5 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
• Around 13% better floating-point performance: 3,344 gflops vs 2,961 gflops
• Around 25% lower typical power consumption: 200 Watt vs 250 Watt
• Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5562 vs 5195
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.829 vs 65.367
• Around 58% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1266.685 vs 799.421
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.495 vs 5.718
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 79.909 vs 71.057
• Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7957 vs 7365
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3698 vs 2154
• Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7957 vs 7365
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3698 vs 2154

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	5195 5562
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	733 665
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	65.367 67.829
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	799.421 1266.685
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.718 6.495
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	71.057 79.909
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	413.329 365.384
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7365 7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2154 3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3354 3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7365 7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2154 3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3354 3337

Compare specifications (specs)