G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Radeon PRO W6400

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,270 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 531.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 36.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 500W, a 450W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 307mm, a 139mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.

Radeon R9 295X2

2014

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
554.6% HIGHER MSRP
$1,499 MSRPvs$229 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 36.8 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
❌900% higher power demand at 500W vs 50W.
❌82.7% longer card at 307mm vs 168mm.

Radeon PRO W6400

2022

Radeon R9 295X2

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,270 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 531.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 36.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 500W, a 450W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 307mm, a 139mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
554.6% HIGHER MSRP
$1,499 MSRPvs$229 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 36.8 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
❌900% higher power demand at 500W vs 50W.
❌82.7% longer card at 307mm vs 168mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 295X2 better than Radeon PRO W6400?

Yes. Radeon R9 295X2 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 8,734 vs 8,428 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon R9 295X2 is a 2014 card with FSR upscaling, while Radeon PRO W6400 is a 2022 model from an older generation with FSR upscaling. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon PRO W6400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2022 generation instead of 2014, 100.0% more ray-tracing hardware, and a 6nm process instead of 28nm. That makes it the safer long-run choice for modern games.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon R9 295X2 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon R9 295X2 is about 554.6% more expensive on MSRP at $1,499 MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and you are getting 3.6% higher G3D Mark. Radeon PRO W6400 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does Radeon PRO W6400 make more sense than Radeon R9 295X2?

Yes. Radeon PRO W6400 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (50W vs 500W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $229 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 295X2. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 295X2 currently gives you 3.6% higher G3D Mark. Radeon PRO W6400 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon PRO W6400 Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 295X2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	132 FPS	105 FPS
medium	118 FPS	89 FPS
high	101 FPS	73 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	49 FPS
1440p
low	118 FPS	89 FPS
medium	100 FPS	75 FPS
high	83 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	62 FPS	36 FPS
4K
low	49 FPS	36 FPS
medium	46 FPS	32 FPS
high	34 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	17 FPS

Open Radeon PRO W6400 Open Radeon R9 295X2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	169 FPS	193 FPS
medium	134 FPS	169 FPS
high	99 FPS	141 FPS
ultra	66 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	110 FPS	137 FPS
medium	86 FPS	111 FPS
high	64 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	57 FPS	63 FPS
medium	44 FPS	53 FPS
high	35 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	22 FPS	39 FPS

Open Radeon PRO W6400 Open Radeon R9 295X2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	377 FPS	393 FPS
medium	303 FPS	314 FPS
high	249 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	190 FPS	197 FPS
1440p
low	265 FPS	295 FPS
medium	228 FPS	236 FPS
high	186 FPS	197 FPS
ultra	142 FPS	147 FPS
4K
low	155 FPS	197 FPS
medium	143 FPS	157 FPS
high	102 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	70 FPS	98 FPS

Open Radeon PRO W6400 Open Radeon R9 295X2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	285 FPS	240 FPS
medium	206 FPS	207 FPS
high	180 FPS	168 FPS
ultra	146 FPS	143 FPS
1440p
low	210 FPS	179 FPS
medium	149 FPS	155 FPS
high	132 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	104 FPS	98 FPS
4K
low	105 FPS	103 FPS
medium	76 FPS	82 FPS
high	67 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	50 FPS

Open Radeon PRO W6400 Open Radeon R9 295X2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon PRO W6400 and Radeon R9 295X2

Radeon PRO W6400

The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.

Radeon R9 295X2

The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon PRO W6400 scores 8,428 and the Radeon R9 295X2 reaches 8,734 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the Radeon R9 295X2 uses GCN 2.0, both on 6 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 2,816 (Radeon R9 295X2). Raw compute: 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2). Boost clocks: 2331 MHz vs 1018 MHz.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
G3D Mark Score	8,428	8,734+4%
Architecture	RDNA 2.0	GCN 2.0
Process Node	6 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	768	2816 ×2+267%
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.58 TFLOPS	5.733 TFLOPS ×2+60%
Boost Clock	2331 MHz+129%	1018 MHz
ROPs	32	64 ×2+100%
TMUs	48	176 ×2+267%
L1 Cache	256 KB	704 KB+175%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Frame Generation	FSR upscaling + RSR	FSR upscaling

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
Upscaling Tech	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon PRO W6400 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 295X2 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 295X2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 512-bit x2.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit	512-bit x2+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 6.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
DirectX	12.2+2%	12.0
Vulkan	1.2+9%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6+7%	4.3
Max Displays	2	6+200%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Decoder: VCN 3.0 vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 295X2).

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
Encoder	VCN 3.0	VCE 2.0
Decoder	VCN 3.0	UVD 4.2
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon PRO W6400 draws 50W versus the Radeon R9 295X2's 500W — a 163.6% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 168mm vs 307mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	Radeon R9 295X2
TDP	50W-90%	500W
Recommended PSU	500W-50%	1000W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	2x 8-pin
Length	168mm	307mm
Height	69mm	114mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	65°C-7%
Perf/Watt	168.6+863%	17.5

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 295X2 launched at $1499. The Radeon PRO W6400 costs 84.7% less ($1270 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 36.8 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 5.8 (Radeon R9 295X2) — the Radeon PRO W6400 offers 534.5% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2014).