AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and AMD Radeon HD 6950 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the newer mobile-oriented chip taking a 12.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL performance, yet the specification sheets reveal a far more complex story about how each card achieves its results. These are not direct contemporaries, but rather a study in how AMD shifted priorities from raw desktop throughput to efficiency and feature support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has a higher average benchmark score of 6327, compared to 6210 for the AMD Radeon HD 6950. The R7 M350 also holds a 12.6% lead in the only direct head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 6991 versus 6210.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of raw compute specifications?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6950 has dramatically higher raw compute specifications, offering 2.253 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. In contrast, the R7 M350 provides 779.5 GFLOPS, 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 6950 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth—exactly ten times the memory bandwidth of the newer card.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 is limited to DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the physical dimensions and power requirements of the HD 6950?

A: The HD 6950 is a dual-slot card measuring 286 mm in length, 126 mm in height, and 42 mm in width. It requires a 200 W TDP, two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested 550 W power supply.

Q: How do the two cards rank in the overall GPU percentile?

A: Both the AMD Radeon R7 M350 and the AMD Radeon HD 6950 sit at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, placing them in the same performance tier despite their vastly different architectures and specifications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is the defining factor in their performance profiles. The R7 M350 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture using the Meso chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.4M per mm², a figure that highlights the efficiency gains of the newer manufacturing process. The HD 6950, by contrast, uses the TeraScale 3 architecture with the Cayman chip, built on a 40 nm process with 2,640 million transistors spread across a much larger 389 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 6.8M per mm².

The R7 M350's GCN architecture was designed for compute-heavy workloads and modern API support, which explains its inclusion of DirectX 12 and Vulkan features. The HD 6950's TeraScale 3 architecture predates these APIs, capping it at DirectX 11.2. The newer chip also integrates its memory controller and shader array more densely, allowing the 384 shading units to operate at a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1015 MHz, while the HD 6950's 1408 shading units run at an unspecified clock rate that nevertheless produces 2.253 TFLOPS.

The memory subsystems reflect divergent design goals. The R7 M350 pairs 4 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus, prioritizing capacity and power efficiency over bandwidth. The HD 6950's 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivers 160.0 GB/s, a figure that dominates the R7 M350's 16.00 GB/s. This difference is not incidental—the HD 6950 was built to feed a high-throughput desktop GPU, while the R7 M350 targets a more constrained power envelope, likely for mobile or small-form-factor systems, given its lack of a listed TDP and external power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are telling. The R7 M350 scores 6991, while the HD 6950 scores 6210, giving the newer card a 12.6% victory. This is a surprising result given the HD 6950's theoretical compute advantage of 2.253 TFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS—a nearly threefold difference in raw FP32 throughput.

The data suggests that the R7 M350's GCN architecture extracts far more practical compute performance from its resources than the older TeraScale design. The R7 M350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (a 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (a 0.7% delta), placing it in a performance band that includes professional workstation cards. The HD 6950, meanwhile, sits near the AMD FirePro W600 at 6223 with a -0.2% delta, indicating it performs slightly below that workstation card.

The 12.6% delta between the two AMD cards in this test is modest compared to the specification gap. This implies that the HD 6950's massive memory bandwidth and shading unit count partially compensate for its older architecture, but not enough to overcome the R7 M350's superior instruction efficiency and modern compute capabilities. The R7 M350 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5662, a test the HD 6950 cannot even run due to its lack of Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion: the R7 M350 is the better GPU for modern workloads, while the HD 6950 retains advantages in specific legacy or bandwidth-intensive scenarios. The R7 M350 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 12.6%, supports DirectX 12 and Vulkan, and achieves this with a fraction of the HD 6950's transistor count and die size. The HD 6950, however, offers 10x the memory bandwidth, 8x the pixel rate (25.60 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s), and nearly 3x the texture rate (70.40 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s).

For users running modern applications that leverage DirectX 12 or Vulkan, the R7 M350 is the only viable choice, as the HD 6950 lacks support for these APIs entirely. The R7 M350's average benchmark score of 6327 also edges out the HD 6950's 6210, and its nearest rivals include the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at a 0.9% delta, suggesting it competes with much newer discrete GPUs. The HD 6950's launch MSRP was 299 USD, and it was released in 2010, making it a product of a different era in GPU design.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The process node jumps from 40 nm to 28 nm, and transistor count drops from 2,640 million to 1,550 million, while die size shrinks from 389 mm² to 125 mm². Transistor density increases from 6.8M to 12.4M per mm². Clock speeds are only listed for the R7 M350 (1000 MHz base, 1015 MHz boost), while the HD 6950 lists only its memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations diverge sharply: 4 GB DDR3 versus 2 GB GDDR5, 64-bit versus 256-bit bus widths, and 16.00 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The compute units scale down from 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the HD 6950 to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the R7 M350. Pixel rate drops from 25.60 to 8.120 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 70.40 to 24.36 GTexel/s. FP32 performance falls from 2.253 TFLOPS to 779.5 GFLOPS, though the R7 M350 adds FP16 at 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1), a capability the HD 6950 lacks.

The HD 6950 requires a 200 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, two 6-pin power connectors, and a 550 W suggested PSU, while the R7 M350 lists none of these, implying a much lower power draw. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M350 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the HD 6950. API support shows the generational gap, with the R7 M350 offering DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, versus the HD 6950's DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4. Finally, the HD 6950 measures 286 mm x 126 mm x 42 mm, while the R7 M350 has no listed dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M350 wins in the compute and modern API categories. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6991 outperforms the HD 6950's 6210 by 12.6%, and it adds a Vulkan score of 5662 that the HD 6950 cannot match. Its support for DirectX 12 and Vulkan makes it the only option for modern game engines and compute frameworks. The R7 M350 also wins on efficiency metrics—it uses a smaller die, fewer transistors, and likely far less power, given the absence of a TDP listing and power connectors. Its 4 GB memory capacity doubles the HD 6950's 2 GB, which may benefit workloads with large working sets, even if bandwidth is severely constrained.

The HD 6950 wins decisively on raw throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is ten times higher than the R7 M350's 16.00 GB/s, making it far superior for bandwidth-bound tasks like high-resolution texture streaming or certain compute kernels. Its pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 70.40 GTexel/s are more than three times higher than the R7 M350, suggesting better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios. The HD 6950's 1408 shading units also provide nearly 2.9x the FP32 throughput (2.253 TFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS), which could benefit older applications that scale with raw shader count rather than architectural efficiency. For users running legacy DirectX 11 software on a desktop system with ample power, the HD 6950's brute-force approach remains competitive, but the R7 M350's architectural refinements make it the more future-proof choice.