AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon R7 350 is the stronger card in raw compute performance, leading the AMD Radeon HD 6950 by 25.5% in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The R7 350 scores 7792, while the HD 6950 scores 6210. In the overall database percentile ranking, the R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile across all GPUs, while the HD 6950 sits at the 36th percentile. The average benchmark score for the R7 350 is 7425, compared to 6210 for the HD 6950.

The R7 350 is the card to pick if you need a modern, low-power solution that still delivers competitive compute results. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot design make it a drop-in candidate for systems with modest power supplies and space constraints. The HD 6950, with its 200 W TDP and dual-slot footprint, is a legacy part that belongs in older systems or as a collector’s item. Its only recorded benchmark is the OpenCL test, and it loses that one decisively. The data shows no scenario where the HD 6950 wins a performance comparison; the R7 350 takes the sole head-to-head benchmark. If you are building or upgrading today, the R7 350 is the logical choice. If you are maintaining a vintage system, the HD 6950 remains functional but is outclassed in the database’s measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data records only one benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The R7 350 wins that test outright, taking the only victory in the comparison. The HD 6950 does not register a win in any recorded test. The R7 350 also has a second benchmark result, Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 7057, which the HD 6950 lacks entirely due to its lack of Vulkan support. This means the R7 350 wins in any modern API workload that can leverage Vulkan, while the HD 6950 is limited to older DirectX and OpenGL paths.

In terms of use cases, the R7 350 is suited for compute tasks that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, such as GPU-accelerated rendering or newer game titles that use these APIs. The HD 6950, with its higher raw texture and pixel rates on paper, might seem attractive for older DirectX 11 titles, but the actual benchmark result shows it falls behind. The R7 350 also wins on efficiency: its 55 W TDP versus 200 W for the HD 6950 means it delivers more performance per watt in the recorded test. For a builder prioritizing low heat output, low noise, or a small form factor, the R7 350 is the clear winner. The HD 6950’s only advantage in the database is its older architecture’s higher peak fill rates, but those do not translate into a benchmark victory.

Architecture Differences

The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The HD 6950 uses the Cayman chip built on TeraScale 3 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm, which contributes to the R7 350’s much lower power draw. The R7 350 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The HD 6950 has 2,640 million transistors on a 389 mm² die, giving a density of 6.8 million per mm². The R7 350 packs more transistors into a smaller area, a direct result of the newer process.

The shading unit count differs substantially: the R7 350 has 512 shading units, while the HD 6950 has 1,408. Texture mapping units are 32 versus 88, and ROPs are 16 versus 32. Despite the HD 6950’s larger raw counts, the R7 350 still wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that architecture efficiency and clock behavior matter more than unit count alone. The R7 350 runs GCN 1.0, which supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support. This is a critical architectural split: the R7 350 is modern enough for current APIs, while the HD 6950 is locked to older standards.

Memory architecture also differs. The R7 350 uses a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 6950 uses a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the HD 6950’s memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the R7 350’s 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The HD 6950 has a wider bus and higher bandwidth, but the R7 350’s newer memory controller and GCN design compensate in practice. The R7 350 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the HD 6950 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, making the R7 350 more compatible with modern motherboards.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7792 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210. The R7 350 wins by 25.5%.

Q: Does the HD 6950 support Vulkan?

A: No. The HD 6950 has no Vulkan support in its API list. The R7 350 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, and it has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The HD 6950 has a TDP of 200 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and needs a 550 W PSU.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The R7 350 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length. The HD 6950 is a dual-slot card measuring 286 mm (11.3 inches) in length, 126 mm (5 inches) in height, and 42 mm (1.7 inches) in width.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX versions?

A: The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0). This means the R7 350 is compatible with more modern titles and features.

Q: Is the HD 6950 competitive with the R7 350 in any metric?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the HD 6950 wins zero tests. The R7 350 wins the only head-to-head test. The HD 6950 does have higher texture and pixel rates on paper, but those do not produce a benchmark victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The R7 350 scores 7792, the HD 6950 scores 6210, and the R7 350 wins by 25.5%. This is a decisive margin. The R7 350’s score places it among rivals like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, a 0.2% deficit), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, a 0.3% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, a 0.6% deficit), and the Intel Arc A310 (7550, a 1.7% deficit). In other words, the R7 350 outperforms all of these near-neighbors in the database’s average score ranking, sitting just below the Arc A310 by 1.7%.

The HD 6950’s score of 6210 places it near the AMD FirePro W600 (6223, a 0.2% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270, a 0.9% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, a 0.9% deficit), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, a 1.1% deficit). This means the HD 6950 is competitive with those specific parts in the OpenCL workload, but it is nowhere near the R7 350. The R7 350 also has a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057, which the HD 6950 cannot attempt due to missing Vulkan support. That additional result reinforces the R7 350’s lead in modern compute scenarios.

The delta of 25.5% is the largest recorded difference in this comparison. For context, the R7 350’s average benchmark score is 7425, which is 1215 points higher than the HD 6950’s 6210. In practical terms, the R7 350 completes OpenCL workloads noticeably faster. The HD 6950’s higher pixel rate (25.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (70.40 GTexel/s) match or exceed the R7 350’s figures (12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s), but those theoretical peaks do not translate into real-world compute wins. The recorded data favors the R7 350 decisively.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The R7 350 uses a 28 nm process, the HD 6950 uses 40 nm. Transistor count is 1,500 million versus 2,640 million, and die size is 123 mm² versus 389 mm². Transistor density is 12.2M per mm² versus 6.8M per mm². The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The HD 6950 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350 and 25.60 GPixel/s for the HD 6950. Texture rate is 25.60 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350, while the HD 6950 reaches 2.253 TFLOPS.

Memory specifications also diverge. The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 6950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the R7 350 and 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the HD 6950. Power delivery is a major difference: the R7 350 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The HD 6950 has a 200 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Interface and display outputs differ as well. The R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The HD 6950 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers two DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and two mini-DisplayPort 1.2. API support is another split: the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan. Physical dimensions: the R7 350 is 168 mm long, while the HD 6950 is 286 mm long, 126 mm high, and 42 mm wide. The HD 6950 has a launch MSRP of 299 USD. The R7 350 has no recorded launch MSRP.