AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs in the database is Geekbench Metal, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 113,721 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 7950 scores 33,951 points. That places the RX 6800M 70.1% ahead of the HD 7950, a margin so large that the two cards are operating in entirely different performance tiers despite both carrying the AMD brand.

To contextualize the HD 7950's position, its score of 33,951 places it at the 78th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 33,997 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7700S scores 33,849 (0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT scores 34,133 (0.5% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 34,154 (0.6% higher). The HD 7950 is essentially neck-and-neck with this group, trailing the RX 480 by a negligible 0.1% and the RTX A2000 by 0.6%. This is remarkable for a card from the Southern Islands generation: it is holding its own against cards released many years later, at least in this particular compute-oriented API test.

The RX 6800M, by contrast, sits at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28,874 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570 at 28,766 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.4% lower), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X at 28,580 (1% higher), and the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (1% lower). The RX 6800M is clustered very tightly with these cards, all within a 1% band, which suggests that its aggregate performance across diverse workloads lands it in a different competitive neighborhood than its Geekbench Metal score alone might imply.

The Geekbench Metal test is a compute-heavy workload, and the RX 6800M's 70.1% advantage there reflects its architectural advantages in raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. The HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 240.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth are simply outclassed by the RX 6800M's 12.24 TFLOPS and 384.0 GB/s. The delta is so large that the HD 7950 would need to nearly triple its performance to match the RX 6800M in this specific test, which is not a realistic expectation given the generational gap.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most use cases: the AMD Radeon RX 6800M is the superior GPU by a wide margin in the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench Metal test. Its 113,721 score versus 33,951 for the HD 7950, a 70.1% lead, is not a marginal difference. It is a generational leap reflected in every relevant specification: the RX 6800M has more shading units (2,560 versus 1,792), more texture mapping units (160 versus 112), double the render output units (64 versus 32), quadruple the memory capacity (12 GB versus 3 GB), and 60% higher memory bandwidth (384.0 GB/s versus 240.0 GB/s).

However, the HD 7950 is not without its arguments. Its 78th percentile ranking versus the RX 6800M's 74th percentile is a curious inversion: the older card ranks higher relative to all GPUs, yet loses decisively in the head-to-head test. This is because the HD 7950's aggregate score is based on a single benchmark, while the RX 6800M's average is dragged down by multiple older DirectX tests where it performs poorly in relative terms (for example, PassMark DirectX 10 at 101, DirectX 11 at 127, DirectX 12 at 65, and DirectX 9 at 147). The HD 7950's percentile thus reflects a narrower testing profile, not broader superiority.

For a user choosing between these two, the RX 6800M is the clear pick for modern workloads, particularly those leveraging Metal, Vulkan, or DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The HD 7950 offers only DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6800M also includes 40 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the HD 7950. If the workload is limited to legacy APIs or compute tasks similar to Geekbench Metal, the HD 7950's 78th percentile standing shows it remains competitive with much newer cards, but it cannot match the RX 6800M's raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent opposite ends of AMD's architectural evolution. The HD 7950 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 6800M uses the Navi 22 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 7 nm process, with 17,200 million transistors on a slightly smaller 335 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the RX 6800M packs roughly four times more transistors per area, which explains how it achieves higher performance while consuming less power.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The HD 7950 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus, delivering 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus, yet delivers 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth thanks to much faster memory clocks: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The narrower bus is compensated by the higher data rate, resulting in 60% more bandwidth.

Compute resources also scale dramatically. The HD 7950 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 89.60 GTexel/s. The RX 6800M has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 153.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 382.4 GTexel/s. The RX 6800M's pixel rate is six times higher, and its texture rate is over four times higher. FP32 performance jumps from 2.867 TFLOPS to 12.24 TFLOPS, and the RX 6800M additionally offers FP16 at 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a capability the HD 7950 lacks entirely.

The RX 6800M also introduces 40 ray tracing cores, which the HD 7950 does not have. API support reflects the generational gap: the HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6800M's power profile is also lower despite higher performance: its TDP is 145 W versus 200 W for the HD 7950, and it requires no power connectors as a mobile IGP part, whereas the HD 7950 needs two 6-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 113,721 points versus 33,951 for the AMD Radeon HD 7950, a 70.1% advantage for the RX 6800M.

Q: How does the HD 7950 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The HD 7950's score of 33,951 is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997), 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).

Q: Does the RX 6800M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6800M includes 40 ray tracing cores. The HD 7950 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs have?

A: The HD 7950 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The HD 7950 has a 200 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU. The RX 6800M has a 145 W TDP and requires no power connectors as a mobile part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The HD 7950 ranks at the 78th percentile, while the RX 6800M ranks at the 74th percentile, despite the RX 6800M being significantly faster in their shared benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800M wins decisively in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, Geekbench Metal, with a 70.1% lead. This makes it the obvious choice for any workload that leverages Metal, which is common in macOS environments and compute-heavy applications. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 also positions it for modern gaming and professional applications that use ray tracing, variable rate shading, or other next-generation features. The 40 ray tracing cores and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory give it substantial headroom for large textures and complex scenes. Its 12.24 TFLOPS of FP32 and 24.47 TFLOPS of FP16 performance make it suitable for compute tasks that can use half-precision arithmetic, where it has a clear advantage over the HD 7950, which lacks FP16 support altogether.

The HD 7950's wins are more nuanced. Its 78th percentile ranking among all GPUs is higher than the RX 6800M's 74th percentile, which indicates that in the aggregate of database results, the HD 7950 holds up better against the full field of GPUs. This is partly because its single recorded benchmark is a modern compute test, whereas the RX 6800M's average includes several legacy DirectX tests where it scores low in absolute terms (PassMark DirectX 9 at 147, DirectX 10 at 101, DirectX 11 at 127, DirectX 12 at 65). For users running older DirectX 9, 10, or 11 applications, the RX 6800M's relative performance is weaker, and the HD 7950's closer alignment with its contemporary rivals (RX 480, RX 7700S, RX 560 XT, RTX A2000) suggests it remains viable for legacy workloads.

The HD 7950 also has the advantage of being a desktop card with a 278 mm length, 111 mm height, and 38 mm width, with display outputs including DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and two mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections. The RX 6800M is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed and portable-device-dependent outputs, so it is not a drop-in replacement for a desktop system. For a desktop user with an existing PCIe 3.0 slot, the HD 7950 is a functional if aging option; for a mobile user, the RX 6800M is the only choice of the two.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon HD 7950 uses the Tahiti chip on GCN 1.0 architecture with a 28 nm process, while the AMD Radeon RX 6800M uses the Navi 22 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process. Transistor counts are 4,313 million versus 17,200 million, on die sizes of 352 mm² versus 335 mm², giving transistor densities of 12.3M per mm² versus 51.3M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially: the HD 7950 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the RX 6800M has a base clock of 2116 MHz, a boost clock of 2390 MHz, a game clock of 2300 MHz, and a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Memory configurations are 3 GB GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ: 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the HD 7950, versus 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the RX 6800M. The RX 6800M adds 40 ray tracing cores, which the HD 7950 lacks. Pixel rates are 25.60 GPixel/s versus 153.0 GPixel/s, texture rates are 89.60 GTexel/s versus 382.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 2.867 TFLOPS versus 12.24 TFLOPS. The RX 6800M also has FP16 at 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1), while the HD 7950 has no FP16 listing.

Power and physical characteristics differ: the HD 7950 has a 200 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU, and measures 278 mm by 111 mm by 38 mm. The RX 6800M has a 145 W TDP, is an IGP with no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no listed dimensions. Bus interfaces are PCIe 3.0 x16 for the HD 7950 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 6800M. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the HD 7950, versus portable-device-dependent outputs for the RX 6800M.

API support differs: the HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are 2012-01-30 for the HD 7950 and 2021-05-30 for the RX 6800M. The HD 7950 launched at an MSRP of 449 USD, while the RX 6800M has no launch MSRP listed. The HD 7950's predecessor is Northern Islands and its successor is Sea Islands; the RX 6800M's predecessor is Polaris Mobile and it has no successor listed. Both are end-of-life products.