AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two AMD graphics cards. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins the only shared test, and it wins by a decisive margin. In the Geekbench Metal benchmark, the Pro 575 scores 46192 against the HD 7950's 33951, a lead of 36.1%. That is not a narrow victory; it is a generational gap expressed in performance terms. The Pro 575 also has recorded scores in OpenCL and Vulkan tests, 34596 and 37878 respectively, while the HD 7950 has no recorded scores for those workloads in the database. This means the Pro 575 is the only card of the two with measurable data across multiple modern compute APIs.

The HD 7950's single recorded benchmark result is not a win in any category. Its Metal score of 33951 places it behind the Pro 575 in the only direct comparison available. However, the HD 7950 does hold advantages in certain hardware characteristics that do not translate into benchmark wins but matter for specific use cases. It has a wider memory bus at 384 bit versus 256 bit, and higher raw memory bandwidth at 240.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s. For workloads that are purely bandwidth-bound and do not stress the compute units, the HD 7950's memory subsystem could theoretically hold an edge, but no benchmark in the database confirms this. The recorded data only shows one contest, and the Pro 575 wins it outright.

The Pro 575 also wins on API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher Vulkan revision and the fuller DirectX 12 feature level on the Pro 575 mean that modern titles and compute applications written for newer API versions will have more complete support on the newer card. The HD 7950 is not obsolete in API terms, but it trails by one major Vulkan revision and one DirectX feature level.

In terms of form factor and deployment, the two cards target completely different environments. The Pro 575 is an MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for portable or compact systems where the slot itself delivers power. The HD 7950 is a Dual-slot card measuring 278 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width, requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply. These are not interchangeable products. The Pro 575 is for integrated professional laptops or all-in-one workstations; the HD 7950 is for traditional desktop towers with room for a long add-in card.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the superior performer in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded results. The Metal score gap of 36.1% is substantial and consistent with the architectural and specification differences between the two. The Pro 575's average benchmark score of 39555 places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The HD 7950's average benchmark score of 33951 places it in the 78th percentile. Both are above average, but the Pro 575 sits clearly higher.

Who should pick the Pro 575? Anyone running Metal-based workloads, which includes macOS applications, creative suites, and compute tasks that leverage Apple's graphics API. The Pro 575 also has OpenCL and Vulkan scores on record, making it the more versatile choice for cross-API compute. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is larger than the HD 7950's 3 GB, and its 14 nm GlobalFoundries process node gives it a transistor density of 24.6M per mm², more than double the HD 7950's 12.3M per mm². The Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 4.489 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, while the HD 7950 delivers 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability.

Who should pick the HD 7950? The only defensible answer from the recorded data is someone who specifically needs its physical characteristics. It has a 384 bit memory bus and 240.0 GB/s bandwidth, both higher than the Pro 575's figures. It also has a dual-slot desktop form factor with standard display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2), which makes it easier to install in a conventional desktop case. The Pro 575's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent", meaning they are not standardized and depend on the host laptop or chassis. For a fixed desktop workstation with a standard ATX power supply, the HD 7950 is the more conventional hardware choice. But in pure performance terms, the Pro 575 wins every recorded test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench Metal. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 scores 46192, and the AMD Radeon HD 7950 scores 33951. The delta is 36.1% in favor of the Pro 575. This is a large margin, especially considering both cards share the same manufacturer and both are built on GCN architecture, albeit different major revisions.

To put that score in context, look at the nearest rivals for each card. The Pro 575's closest competitor in the database is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile with an average score of 39568 and a delta of 0%. The Pro 575 also sits near the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39116, delta 1.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40063, delta -1.3%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40318, delta -1.9%). The Pro 575's single Metal score of 46192 is well above all of these averages, indicating that in Metal workloads specifically, the Pro 575 punches above its average position.

The HD 7950's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 33951 puts it just below the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33997, delta -0.1%) and just above the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33849, delta 0.3%). It is also close to the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34133, delta -0.5%) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34154, delta -0.6%). These deltas are all under 1%, meaning the HD 7950 sits in a tight cluster of similarly performing cards. The Pro 575, by contrast, has a 36.1% lead over the HD 7950 in the head-to-head test, a gap far larger than any of the intra-cluster differences among their respective rivals.

The OpenCL and Vulkan scores for the Pro 575 (34596 and 37878) have no direct HD 7950 counterpart, but they are informative. The Vulkan score of 37878 is higher than the Pro 575's own OpenCL score, suggesting the card handles Vulkan workloads particularly well. The HD 7950's Vulkan support stops at version 1.2.170, while the Pro 575 supports Vulkan 1.3. That API advantage likely contributes to the Pro 575's stronger modern workload performance, though the database does not provide a direct Vulkan comparison between the two.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has an average benchmark score of 39555, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 7950's 33951. The Pro 575 also ranks higher in the overall percentile standings at 82 versus 78.

Q: How much faster is the Pro 575 in the Metal benchmark?

A: The Pro 575 scores 46192 in Geekbench Metal, while the HD 7950 scores 33951. That is a 36.1% advantage for the Pro 575.

Q: Does the HD 7950 have any performance advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the HD 7950 has a 384 bit memory bus and 240.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 575 has a 256 bit bus and 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. However, no benchmark in the database confirms a real-world performance benefit from this.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The Pro 575 is an MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The HD 7950 is a Dual-slot desktop card measuring 278 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width, requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput?

A: The Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS of FP32 and 4.489 TFLOPS of FP16. The HD 7950 delivers 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 performance.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using the Ellesmere chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 uses GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tahiti chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. These are two different generations of the same fundamental GCN design, separated by major architectural revisions. GCN 4.0 refined the compute unit design, improved power efficiency, and added features compared to the original GCN 1.0 implementation.

The transistor counts reflect the process node differences. The Pro 575 packs 5,700 million transistors onto a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The HD 7950 has 4,313 million transistors on a much larger 352 mm² die, giving it a density of just 12.3M per mm². The Pro 575 achieves nearly double the transistor density despite having more transistors overall, a direct result of the jump from 28 nm to 14 nm manufacturing.

The compute resources also differ. The Pro 575 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The HD 7950 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Pro 575 leads in shading units and TMUs, while both cards have the same ROP count. The pixel rate tells the story: the Pro 575 achieves 35.07 GPixel/s, while the HD 7950 achieves 25.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 140.3 GTexel/s for the Pro 575 versus 89.60 GTexel/s for the HD 7950. The FP32 compute figures are 4.489 TFLOPS for the Pro 575 and 2.867 TFLOPS for the HD 7950, a 56.6% advantage for the newer card.

The Pro 575 is also the only one of the two with a recorded FP16 performance figure, matching its FP32 output at a 1:1 ratio. The HD 7950 has no FP16 entry in the database. This matters for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks and modern graphics effects. The Pro 575's 1:1 FP16 ratio means it can process half-precision data at the same rate as full-precision, which is a significant capability absent from the HD 7950's specification sheet.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, while the HD 7950 uses Tahiti on GCN 1.0. The process node is 14 nm for the Pro 575 and 28 nm for the HD 7950. The foundries differ as well: GlobalFoundries for the Pro 575, TSMC for the HD 7950.

Memory configurations are different in size, type, and bus width. The Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The HD 7950 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The HD 7950 wins on bus width and bandwidth, the Pro 575 wins on capacity and memory clock speed.

Compute unit counts favor the Pro 575. It has 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs. The HD 7950 has 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs. The Pro 575 achieves higher pixel rate (35.07 GPixel/s vs 25.60 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (140.3 GTexel/s vs 89.60 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (4.489 TFLOPS vs 2.867 TFLOPS). Only the Pro 575 lists FP16 performance.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Pro 575 has a TDP of 150 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, and requires no power connectors. The HD 7950 has a TDP of 200 W, uses a Dual-slot form factor, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W. The HD 7950 measures 278 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width. The Pro 575 has no listed dimensions because its MXM form factor depends on the host device.

Display outputs differ. The Pro 575's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent", meaning they vary by laptop or chassis. The HD 7950 has fixed outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. API support also differs, with the Pro 575 supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The HD 7950 has a launch MSRP of 449 USD; the Pro 575 has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ by more than five years, with the HD 7950 released on 2012-01-30 and the Pro 575 on 2017-06-04.