Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs Radeon R9 M395

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 Vega 16

2018

Why buy it

✅8.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 16.4 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $300 MSRP).

Radeon R9 M395

2015

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 16.4 vs 0 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 16: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is already obsolete for modern gaming.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro Vega 16 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.

Radeon Pro Vega 16

2018

Radeon R9 M395

2015

Why buy it

✅8.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 16.4 vs 0 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 16: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is already obsolete for modern gaming.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 16.4 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $300 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro Vega 16 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro Vega 16 better than Radeon R9 M395?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 8.0% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 4,809 vs 4,934 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon Pro Vega 16 is the overall package: you are getting a newer generation, FSR upscaling.

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

Radeon R9 M395 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more VRAM at 2 GB instead of Unknown. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

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

Radeon Pro Vega 16 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon Pro Vega 16 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $300 MSRP, and you are getting 8.0% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and a lower G3D Mark (4,809 vs 4,934). Radeon R9 M395 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does Radeon R9 M395 make more sense than Radeon Pro Vega 16?

Yes. Radeon R9 M395 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 future-proofing and staying closer to $300 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon Pro Vega 16. The trade-off is that Radeon Pro Vega 16 currently gives you a lower G3D Mark (4,809 vs 4,934) and 8.0% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. Radeon R9 M395 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 Vega 16 Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 M395 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
1080p
low	79 FPS	77 FPS
medium	68 FPS	63 FPS
high	55 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	32 FPS
1440p
low	70 FPS	67 FPS
medium	60 FPS	54 FPS
high	43 FPS	38 FPS
ultra	28 FPS	24 FPS
4K
low	25 FPS	24 FPS
medium	23 FPS	23 FPS
high	15 FPS	15 FPS
ultra	13 FPS	13 FPS

Open Radeon Pro Vega 16 Open Radeon R9 M395

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
1080p
low	111 FPS	84 FPS
medium	82 FPS	58 FPS
high	63 FPS	42 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	27 FPS
1440p
low	63 FPS	48 FPS
medium	43 FPS	28 FPS
high	31 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	21 FPS	14 FPS
4K
low	24 FPS	16 FPS
medium	16 FPS	10 FPS
high	13 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	9 FPS	6 FPS

Open Radeon Pro Vega 16 Open Radeon R9 M395

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
1080p
low	216 FPS	222 FPS
medium	173 FPS	178 FPS
high	144 FPS	148 FPS
ultra	108 FPS	111 FPS
1440p
low	162 FPS	167 FPS
medium	130 FPS	133 FPS
high	108 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	108 FPS	111 FPS
medium	87 FPS	89 FPS
high	72 FPS	74 FPS
ultra	53 FPS	56 FPS

Open Radeon Pro Vega 16 Open Radeon R9 M395

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
1080p
low	140 FPS	129 FPS
medium	111 FPS	105 FPS
high	92 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	74 FPS	73 FPS
1440p
low	101 FPS	97 FPS
medium	81 FPS	80 FPS
high	68 FPS	69 FPS
ultra	53 FPS	55 FPS
4K
low	60 FPS	57 FPS
medium	46 FPS	44 FPS
high	36 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	25 FPS	26 FPS

Open Radeon Pro Vega 16 Open Radeon R9 M395

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon Pro Vega 16 and Radeon R9 M395

Radeon Pro Vega 16

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 14 2018. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 815 MHz to 1190 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,809 points.

Radeon R9 M395

The Radeon R9 M395 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 9 2015. It features the GCN architecture. The core clock speed is 834 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,934 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 4,809 and the Radeon R9 M395 reaches 4,934 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is built on GCN 5.0 while the Radeon R9 M395 uses GCN, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 M395).

Feature	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
G3D Mark Score	4,809	4,934+3%
Architecture	GCN 5.0	GCN
Process Node	14 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1024	1792+75%
Frame Generation	FSR upscaling	FSR upscaling

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
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 Vega 16 comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 M395 has 2 GB. The Radeon R9 M395 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 256-bit.

Feature	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
VRAM Capacity	Shared System RAM	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	256-bit+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 12 (FL12_0) (Radeon R9 M395). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (FL12_0)
Vulkan	1.3+8%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 4.0 (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs UVD (Radeon R9 M395). Decoder: UVD 7.0 vs VCE. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4 (Radeon R9 M395).

Feature	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
Encoder	VCE 4.0	UVD
Decoder	UVD 7.0	VCE
Codecs	H.264,H.265	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M395's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M395 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M395). Power connectors: Integrated vs Mobile. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 75°C.

Feature	Radeon Pro Vega 16	Radeon R9 M395
TDP	75W	75W
Recommended PSU	1W-100%	350W
Power Connector	Integrated	Mobile
Length	0mm	0mm
Height	0mm	0mm
Slots	0	0
Temp (Load)	80	75°C-6%
Perf/Watt	64.1	65.8+3%

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 launched at $0 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 M395 launched at $300. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 costs 100+% less ($300 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): Infinity (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 16.4 (Radeon R9 M395) — the Radeon Pro Vega 16 offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2015).