AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M and AMD Radeon HD 7950 represent two distinct eras of AMD graphics engineering. The RX 5300M is a modern mobile part built on RDNA 1.0, while the HD 7950 is a veteran desktop card from the GCN 1.0 generation. Benchmark data shows the RX 5300M holds a lead in the available compute test, scoring 36,529 in Geekbench OpenCL against the HD 7950’s 33,951 in Geekbench Metal. That is a difference of roughly 7.6% in favor of the newer chip, though the comparison spans different API workloads, so the gap reflects both architectural efficiency and test conditions. The RX 5300M also sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, while the HD 7950 rests at the 78th percentile, indicating the mobile chip’s overall standing is slightly higher in the database’s aggregate ranking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark data available places the RX 5300M ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5300M scores 36,529. The HD 7950’s Geekbench Metal score is 33,951. The delta between the two is 2,578 points, which translates to a 7.6% advantage for the RX 5300M. This is a notable result given the HD 7950’s larger memory bus and higher shading unit count, but the RX 5300M’s newer architecture and faster clock speeds compensate for those deficits.

Looking at the nearest rival data, the RX 5300M’s score of 36,529 places it just 0% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which scores 36,530. That is a negligible 1-point gap, effectively tying the two. The RX 5300M also leads the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) by 0.7%, and it trails the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37,157) by 1.7%. Against the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860), the RX 5300M is ahead by 1.9%. These deltas show the RX 5300M clustering tightly with mid-range workstation and older flagship cards, which underscores its competitive position despite being a mobile-oriented product.

For the HD 7950, its Geekbench Metal score of 33,951 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997). It is also 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849), 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133), and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154). The HD 7950’s nearest rivals are all more modern cards, yet the 2012 GPU still holds its own within this narrow band. This suggests that the HD 7950’s raw compute capabilities remain relevant in certain workloads, even if its feature set is dated.

The head-to-head benchmark section is sparse, with no dedicated cross-API tests. However, the available scores indicate that the RX 5300M is the faster card in absolute terms. The 7.6% lead is not overwhelming, but it is consistent across the percentile rankings, where the RX 5300M sits two percentile points higher. When interpreting these numbers, it is important to note that OpenCL and Metal are different APIs, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples. Still, the RX 5300M’s higher score aligns with its architectural advantages in texture rate, pixel rate, and FP32 throughput.

Architecture Differences

The RX 5300M is built on the Navi 14 chip using RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The HD 7950 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process difference is massive: the RX 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The HD 7950 has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, with a density of just 12.3 million per mm². That is over three times higher density for the RX 5300M, which explains how it achieves more compute per watt and per square millimeter.

The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The HD 7950 counters with 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the RX 5300M achieves higher throughput: its pixel rate is 46.24 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s for the HD 7950, and its texture rate is 127.2 GTexel/s versus 89.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also higher on the RX 5300M at 4.069 TFLOPS, compared to 2.867 TFLOPS on the HD 7950. The RX 5300M also delivers 8.138 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the HD 7950 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The RX 5300M uses 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, providing 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 7950 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 240.0 GB/s. The HD 7950’s wider bus gives it 42.9% more bandwidth, but the RX 5300M compensates with higher effective memory clocks (14 Gbps versus 5 Gbps) and a newer memory type. Clock speeds also tell a story: the RX 5300M has a base clock of 1000 MHz, a boost of 1445 MHz, and a game clock of 1181 MHz. The HD 7950 has no base, boost, or game clock listed in the data, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The RX 5300M is a mobile chip with no power connectors and a TDP of 85 W. The HD 7950 is a desktop card with a TDP of 200 W, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The HD 7950 also has a dual-slot form factor, measuring 278 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width. The RX 5300M’s dimensions are not listed, and its display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The HD 7950 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Bus interface differences are notable: the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the HD 7950 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer standard allows for higher bandwidth per lane, which matters for data transfer in compute workloads. API support also differs: the RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5300M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, indicating better support for modern graphics features.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 5300M leads with 4.069 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the HD 7950’s 2.867 TFLOPS. This is a 41.9% advantage for the RX 5300M, which aligns with its higher benchmark score of 36,529 versus 33,951.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The HD 7950 has higher memory bandwidth at 240.0 GB/s, thanks to its 384-bit bus, versus 168.0 GB/s for the RX 5300M’s 96-bit bus. However, the RX 5300M uses faster GDDR6 memory running at 14 Gbps effective, while the HD 7950 uses GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective.

Q: What is the TDP difference, and what does it imply?

A: The RX 5300M has a TDP of 85 W, while the HD 7950 is rated at 200 W. The RX 5300M is designed for mobile systems and requires no power connectors, whereas the HD 7950 needs 2x 6-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The HD 7950 has 1,792 shading units, which is 384 more than the RX 5300M’s 1,408. Despite this, the RX 5300M achieves higher texture and pixel rates due to its higher clock speeds and newer architecture.

Q: Are there any differences in API support?

A: The RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 5300M’s newer API versions indicate better long-term software compatibility.

Q: How do their production statuses and release dates compare?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The RX 5300M was released on 2019-11-12, while the HD 7950 came out on 2012-01-30. The RX 5300M’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile, and the HD 7950’s predecessor is Northern Islands, with its successor being Sea Islands.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5300M | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1445 MHz | Not listed |

| Game Clock | 1181 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 168.0 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 88 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.24 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 127.2 GTexel/s | 89.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.069 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.138 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 85 W | 200 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Dual-slot |

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

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

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2012-01-30 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Northern Islands |

| Successor | Not listed | Sea Islands |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 449 USD |

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the RX 5300M in most performance metrics. Its FP32 throughput is 41.9% higher, its pixel rate is 80.6% higher, and its texture rate is 42.0% higher. The benchmark score reflects this, with the RX 5300M achieving 36,529 versus 33,951 for the HD 7950. The RX 5300M also wins on efficiency, with a TDP of 85 W versus 200 W, making it the obvious choice for mobile or power-constrained systems. The HD 7950’s only clear advantages are memory bandwidth (240.0 GB/s versus 168.0 GB/s) and a wider 384-bit bus, but these do not translate into better compute scores. The HD 7950 also has more shading units and TMUs, yet the RX 5300M’s newer RDNA architecture and higher clock speeds overcome that deficit.

For someone choosing between these two today, the RX 5300M is the better performer in raw compute and offers modern API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4). The HD 7950 might still appeal to users with legacy PCIe 3.0 systems or those needing higher memory bandwidth for specific workloads, but its higher power draw and older architecture make it less attractive. The HD 7950’s launch MSRP was 449 USD, but the data shows the RX 5300M outperforms it in the benchmark, despite being a mobile chip. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the RX 5300M sits at the 80th percentile, two points above the HD 7950’s 78th percentile. Ultimately, the RX 5300M is the superior choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance, efficiency, and software longevity. The HD 7950 remains a capable card for its era, but the benchmark results indicate it has been surpassed by the newer mobile part.