Radeon R9 295X2 vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with Radeon R9 295X2, including specs and performance data.
R9 295X2 outperforms M1 8-Core GPU by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 432 | 301 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.22 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.25 |
| Architecture | no data | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | no data | Vesuvius |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (5 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 2816 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1018 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 500 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 179.2 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | no data | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | no data | 176 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 704 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 307 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2 x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | no data | 512 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 640 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 28
−60.7%
| 45−50
+60.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.31 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−52.8%
|
110−120
+52.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−57.9%
|
90−95
+57.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−52.8%
|
110−120
+52.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−54.8%
|
65−70
+54.8%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−60%
|
120−130
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−63.6%
|
90−95
+63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−62.5%
|
65−70
+62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−59.6%
|
75−80
+59.6%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−60.7%
|
180−190
+60.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−57.9%
|
90−95
+57.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−52.8%
|
110−120
+52.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
−61.1%
|
290−300
+61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−64.7%
|
140−150
+64.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−54.8%
|
65−70
+54.8%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−60%
|
120−130
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−63.6%
|
90−95
+63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−62.5%
|
65−70
+62.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−63.3%
|
80−85
+63.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−59.6%
|
75−80
+59.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−61.8%
|
55−60
+61.8%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−60.7%
|
180−190
+60.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−57.9%
|
90−95
+57.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−64.7%
|
140−150
+64.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−54.8%
|
65−70
+54.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−63.6%
|
90−95
+63.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−59.6%
|
75−80
+59.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−61.8%
|
55−60
+61.8%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−60.7%
|
180−190
+60.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
−60%
|
120−130
+60%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−60%
|
40−45
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−64.9%
|
160−170
+64.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−50%
|
30−33
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−65.1%
|
180−190
+65.1%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−61.8%
|
220−230
+61.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−57.1%
|
55−60
+57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−60.7%
|
45−50
+60.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−61.3%
|
50−55
+61.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−60.7%
|
45−50
+60.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−60%
|
40−45
+60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−57.1%
|
110−120
+57.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−59.6%
|
75−80
+59.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and R9 295X2 compete in popular games:
- R9 295X2 is 61% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.73 | 21.08 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 29 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
R9 295X2, on the other hand, has a 66% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R9 295X2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
