AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 480 vs AMD Radeon HD 7950 is a classic generational showdown, pitting a modern 14nm Polaris card against a veteran 28nm Tahiti part. The benchmark data shows a fascinating convergence in overall average scores — 34059 for the RX 480 versus 34050 for the HD 7950, a delta of 0% — yet the individual test results reveal a starkly different story about how each card achieves that parity. This analysis breaks down the architectural shifts, the single head-to-head benchmark available, and the specification differences that define this matchup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench Metal test, and it is decisively one-sided. The AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 51057, while the AMD Radeon HD 7950 manages 34050. This represents a 49.9% advantage for the RX 480, a massive margin that underscores the generational leap in compute and graphics performance. When interpreting this score, it is critical to note that Geekbench Metal is a compute-oriented workload, which heavily favors the RX 480's modern GCN 4.0 architecture with its doubled FP32 throughput and significantly higher texture and pixel rates.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the two cards appear nearly identical — the RX 480's 34059 average is a rounding error ahead of the HD 7950's 34050. However, this parity is deceptive. The HD 7950's average is derived solely from its single Geekbench Metal result, while the RX 480's average includes three additional tests: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 38245, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 45968. When you isolate the shared Metal test, the RX 480 is nearly 50% faster, suggesting that the HD 7950's overall average would look much worse if it had been subjected to the same suite of modern workloads.

The nearestRivals data further contextualizes this gap. Both cards sit at the 78th percentile of all GPUs, and the deltaPct values show the RX 480 is essentially tied with the HD 7950 in aggregate (0% delta), while both are within 1.1% of the NVIDIA TITAN V and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT. This clustering indicates that in average terms, these are comparable performers, but the head-to-head Metal result proves that the HD 7950's inclusion in that cluster is an artifact of limited testing. The RX 480's 49.9% lead in the one shared workload is the single most important data point in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is enormous, reflecting a four-year gap in design philosophy. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14nm process at GlobalFoundries. The HD 7950 uses the Tahiti chip on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28nm process at TSMC. This node shrink is the primary driver of efficiency: the RX 480 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter, versus the HD 7950's 4,313 million transistors spread across a much larger 352 mm² die with just 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The RX 480's newer GCN 4.0 architecture brings a host of feature improvements. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the HD 7950 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 480 also doubles the FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a capability entirely absent from the HD 7950, which has no FP16 support listed. The RX 480's memory subsystem is also more modern, using 8GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the HD 7950 uses 3GB on a wider 384-bit bus. The RX 480 compensates for the narrower bus with faster memory clocks — 8 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps — yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 240.0 GB/s.

The compute resources tell a similar story of generational scaling. The RX 480 features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the HD 7950's 1792 shaders, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to dramatically higher theoretical throughput: the RX 480 delivers 5.834 TFLOPS FP32, 182.3 GTexel/s texture fill, and 40.51 GPixel/s pixel rate, versus the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS, 89.60 GTexel/s, and 25.60 GPixel/s. The RX 480 is roughly twice as powerful in raw compute metrics, yet it does so at a lower 150W TDP compared to the HD 7950's 200W, a signal of the 14nm node's efficiency gains.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 has an average benchmark score of 34059, which is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon HD 7950's 34050, a delta of 0%.

Q: How much faster is the RX 480 in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX 480 scores 51057 versus the HD 7950's 34050 in Geekbench Metal, giving the RX 480 a 49.9% performance advantage.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 480 has a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm² on a 232 mm² die, while the HD 7950 has 12.3 million per mm² on a 352 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 7950 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The RX 480 has 256.0 GB/s bandwidth from its 8GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the HD 7950 has 240.0 GB/s from 3GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP and power connector requirement for each card?

A: The RX 480 has a 150W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector, while the HD 7950 has a 200W TDP and requires two 6-pin connectors.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 480 is the superior performer in every measurable compute workload. Its 49.9% lead in Geekbench Metal is conclusive, and its additional benchmark scores (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 966, OpenCL at 38245, Vulkan at 45968) demonstrate a breadth of modern API support that the HD 7950 simply cannot match. The HD 7950's sole benchmark score of 34050 in Metal is its only data point, and it falls far short of the RX 480's 51057.

For users considering these cards today, the RX 480 is the only rational choice. It offers roughly double the FP32 throughput (5.834 TFLOPS vs 2.867 TFLOPS), nearly double the texture fill rate (182.3 GTexel/s vs 89.60 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (40.51 GPixel/s vs 25.60 GPixel/s), all while consuming 50W less power (150W vs 200W) and requiring a smaller power supply (450W vs 550W). The HD 7950's only advantages are its wider 384-bit memory bus and lower launch MSRP of 449 USD versus the RX 480's 229 USD — but that MSRP advantage is historical, as both cards are now end-of-life products.

The RX 480 also future-proofs better with Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) support, whereas the HD 7950 is stuck on older API versions. In aggregate, the average scores are tied at 78th percentile, but that is a statistical illusion created by the HD 7950's single test result. The verdict is clear: pick the RX 480 for any modern workload, and only consider the HD 7950 if you need a wider memory bus for a very niche application, which the benchmark data does not support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 480 | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |

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

| Chip | Ellesmere | Tahiti |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 352 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Clock | 8 Gbps effective | 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 144 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 89.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.834 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 150 W | 200 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 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 (LxHxW) | 240x95x35 mm | 278x111x38 mm |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2012-01-30 |