AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database benchmark results?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins the only shared benchmark test. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 44,655 versus 33,951 for the AMD Radeon HD 7950, a 31.5% advantage.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 575X compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Pro 575X has an average benchmark score of 39,116. It sits 1.1% ahead of both the AMD Radeon Pro 580X and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, and 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile.

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

A: The Radeon Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon HD 7950 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, yielding 240.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher power requirements?

A: The Radeon HD 7950 draws 200 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with two 6-pin connectors. The Radeon Pro 575X is rated at 150 W, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a portable-device-dependent output.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Radeon Pro 575X was released in 2019, while the Radeon HD 7950 launched in 2012.

Q: What API levels do these GPUs support?

A: The Pro 575X 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.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X and AMD Radeon HD 7950 represent two distinct generations of Graphics Core Next architecture. The Pro 575X uses GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with the Ellesmere chip. The HD 7950 uses the original GCN 1.0, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process with the Tahiti chip.

The transistor counts reflect the process gap. The Pro 575X packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, achieving a density of 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The HD 7950 has 4,313 million transistors spread across a larger 352 mm² die, resulting in just 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the newer chip crams roughly double the density into a smaller physical area.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Pro 575X uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR5 running at 6.8 Gbps effective, delivering 217.0 GB/s. The HD 7950 uses a wider 384-bit bus with 3 GB GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective, providing more raw bandwidth at 240.0 GB/s. Despite having less capacity, the older card has higher bandwidth due to its wider bus.

Core configurations also diverge. The Pro 575X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The HD 7950 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The newer card has 14% more shaders and TMUs, while ROP count stays equal.

Compute throughput reflects the architectural advances. The Pro 575X delivers 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 and matches that with 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The HD 7950 manages 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. The pixel and texture rates follow suit: 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s for the Pro 575X versus 25.60 GPixel/s and 89.60 GTexel/s for the HD 7950.

Physical design separates these cards further. The Pro 575X is an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs, fitting into Apple Mac systems. The HD 7950 is a dual-slot card measuring 278 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 38 mm wide, with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. It requires two 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W PSU.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD Radeon Pro 575X in raw performance. With a 31.5% lead in the only directly comparable test (Geekbench Metal), the newer card is the stronger performer for compute workloads that use Apple's Metal API. The Pro 575X also sits at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the HD 7950's 78th percentile.

However, the HD 7950 retains one practical advantage: memory bandwidth. Its 240.0 GB/s exceeds the Pro 575X's 217.0 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive tasks despite the older architecture. But this advantage is narrow, and the Pro 575X wins on every other measurable front: shading units, TMUs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and API support.

Who should pick which? Users building or upgrading a Mac system with portable or integrated graphics needs should choose the Radeon Pro 575X, as it is designed for that form factor and offers modern Vulkan 1.3 support. Users with a desktop rig that can accommodate a dual-slot card and has a 550 W PSU might consider the HD 7950 for its wider memory bus, but the data shows it is slower in Metal workloads and lacks FP16 capability. The verdict is straightforward: the Pro 575X is the superior GPU for most tasks, and the HD 7950 only makes sense when its specific physical requirements and memory bandwidth are the priority.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification except ROP count (both have 32) and OpenGL support (both 4.6).

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575X | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | 3 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 6.8 Gbps effective | 5 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 2,048 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 128 | 112 |

| Pixel Rate | 35.07 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 89.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 150 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 278 mm x 111 mm x 38 mm |

| Release Date | 2019 | 2012 |

| Predecessor | None listed | Northern Islands |

| Successor | None listed | Sea Islands |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 449 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark: Geekbench Metal. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X scores 44,655, while the AMD Radeon HD 7950 scores 33,951. The delta is 31.5% in favor of the Pro 575X, making it a decisive winner in this test.

Context from the nearest rivals strengthens the interpretation. The Pro 575X's average benchmark score of 39,116 places it just 1.1% above the Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) and the GeForce MX570 A (38,691), and 1.1% below the Radeon Pro 575 (39,555) and RTX A500 Mobile (39,568). This means the Pro 575X sits in a tight performance cluster, trading blows with similarly positioned mobile and workstation GPUs.

The HD 7950's average score of 33,951 puts it in a different league. Its nearest rivals include the Radeon RX 480 (33,997, 0.1% ahead), the Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, 0.3% behind), the Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, 0.5% behind), and the RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, 0.6% behind). The HD 7950 is essentially matched with these cards, but all of them trail the Pro 575X by a wide margin.

The 31.5% delta between the two cards is the largest gap in the head-to-head data. For context, the Pro 575X's closest rival is only 1.1% away, and the HD 7950's closest rival is just 0.1% away. The generational leap from GCN 1.0 to GCN 4.0, combined with the process shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm, explains the magnitude of this difference.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads that leverage Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan. Its FP32 throughput of 4.489 TFLOPS is 56.6% higher than the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS, making it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and machine learning inference that uses these APIs. Its FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio further extends its utility for half-precision workloads, which the HD 7950 cannot handle at all.

The Pro 575X also wins on efficiency. It draws 150 W versus 200 W for the HD 7950, while delivering higher performance. It requires no power connectors and fits as an IGP, making it suitable for compact systems where the HD 7950's dual-slot, 278 mm length, and 550 W PSU requirement would be impractical.

The HD 7950's only recorded win is memory bandwidth: 240.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s. This could benefit workloads that stream large textures or datasets where raw bandwidth outranks compute throughput. However, the database shows no benchmark where this translates into a performance win, so this advantage remains theoretical.

For users targeting modern API support, the Pro 575X has Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0, while the HD 7950 offers Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 11_1. The newer card is better positioned for current and future software. The HD 7950's legacy lies in its 384-bit bus and higher bandwidth, but the data does not show this overcoming the Pro 575X's architectural and compute advantages in any tested scenario.