AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs Intel Arc A370M Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 7950 and Intel Arc A370M represent two very different answers to the same question: how much graphics performance can you extract from a given design philosophy? The database shows the HD 7950 as the higher-scoring card, sitting in the 78th percentile of all recorded GPUs with an average benchmark score of 33951, while the Arc A370M lands in the 74th percentile with an average of 29175. The gap is real but modest, roughly 14 percent in the older Tahiti part's favor, and it comes despite the A370M being a mobile-focused integrated design drawing a fraction of the power. That tension, a decade-old discrete flagship trading blows with a modern low-power mobile GPU, is what makes this comparison interesting.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head test results between these two parts are not present in the database, so the comparison rests on each card's recorded benchmark runs and their surrounding rival clusters. The HD 7950's data consists of a Geekbench Metal score of 33951, which also serves as its average. The Arc A370M recorded a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 28673, averaging 29175.

The context around those numbers tells the clearer story. The HD 7950's score places it within a hair of the AMD Radeon RX 480, whose average of 33997 sits just 0.1 percent above it, and effectively level with the Radeon RX 7700S at 33849, which the HD 7950 beats by 0.3 percent. It trails the Radeon RX 560 XT by 0.5 percent and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB by 0.6 percent. In other words, the Tahiti card benchmarks in a cluster of far newer mid-range GPUs.

The Arc A370M's neighborhood is a step down. Its closest rivals include the Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29197 and the FirePro W8000 at 29211, both effectively tied with it at a rounding-level 0.1 percent difference. It sits 0.6 percent above the Radeon RX 470 and 1 percent above the RX 6800M in the recorded averages. Notably, the A370M's cluster includes cards like the RX 6800M that are far more capable in other respects, which suggests these specific benchmark runs capture only a narrow slice of performance.

Stacking the two averages, the HD 7950 leads by roughly 4776 points, or about 14 percent. That is the headline win for AMD. The counterweight is efficiency: the A370M delivers its 29175 average within a 35 W envelope, while the HD 7950 needs a 200 W TDP and a suggested 550 W system power supply. Per watt, the A370M is in a different league, though the database does not normalize scores by power, so treat that as directional context rather than a measured figure.

Architecture Differences

These GPUs could hardly be more architecturally distinct. The HD 7950 is built on the Tahiti chip, GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Southern Islands (HD 7900) generation, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 4313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3M per mm². The Arc A370M uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation, built on TSMC's 6 nm node. It fits 7200 million transistors into just 157 mm², a density of 45.9M per mm². That density figure is nearly four times higher, a direct consequence of the process node gap between the two designs.

The core configurations diverge in opposite directions. The HD 7950 fields 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The A370M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. Where the AMD part wins on raw unit counts, the Intel part wins on clock speed and modern features: the A370M runs a 1550 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost clock, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). No base, boost, or game clock is recorded for the HD 7950, though its memory runs at 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective.

Throughput figures follow the same split. The HD 7950's FP32 compute is 2.867 TFLOPS with a texture rate of 89.60 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s. The A370M pushes 4.198 TFLOPS FP32, doubles that at 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 rate, and delivers 131.2 GTexel/s and 65.60 GPixel/s. On paper throughput, the A370M wins across the board, and it is the only one of the two with ray tracing hardware, at 8 RT cores. The database records no RT or tensor cores for the HD 7950.

Memory subsystems favor the old flagship decisively. The HD 7950 carries 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus for 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A370M has 4 GB of faster GDDR6, but on a narrow 64-bit bus, producing only 112.0 GB/s. Bandwidth is less than half, and that deficit is a plausible reason the A370M's strong on-paper compute does not fully translate into benchmark leads.

Software support also differs. The A370M targets DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 7950 reports DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both list OpenGL 4.6. Platform integration differs just as sharply: the HD 7950 is a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with two 6-pin power connectors, while the A370M is an IGP-class part on PCIe 4.0 x8 with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

If the decision is purely about benchmark standing, the HD 7950 wins. Its 78th percentile placement and 33951 average put it ahead of the A370M's 74th percentile and 29175 average by roughly 14 percent, and its rival cluster (RX 480, RTX A2000 12 GB) is stronger than the A370M's (RX Vega M GH, FirePro W8000). It also holds more than double the memory bandwidth, which matters at higher resolutions and heavier workloads.

But the verdict flips when the constraints are physical. The A370M operates at 35 W inside a laptop-class envelope; the HD 7950 demands 200 W, dual-slot space, two 6-pin connectors, and a suggested 550 W supply. The A370M also brings hardware ray tracing, FP16 throughput at 8.397 TFLOPS, and current API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 7950's software baseline is older and its feature set predates ray tracing entirely.

Practically, these two products barely compete. The HD 7950 suits a desktop where power and space are available and where its bandwidth advantage can be exploited. The A370M suits a thin mobile platform where a 200 W discrete card is simply not an option. Both are end-of-life products in the database, so this is a historical comparison rather than a purchase decision between new parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in the database?

A: The Radeon HD 7950, with an average benchmark score of 33951 versus 29175 for the Arc A370M, a gap of roughly 14 percent. The HD 7950 sits in the 78th percentile of all GPUs; the A370M sits in the 74th.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The HD 7950 is within 0.1 percent of the RX 480, 0.3 percent ahead of the RX 7700S, 0.5 percent behind the RX 560 XT, and 0.6 percent behind the RTX A2000 12 GB. The A370M is essentially tied with the RX Vega M GH and FirePro W8000, 0.6 percent ahead of the RX 470, and 1 percent ahead of the RX 6800M.

Q: Which one has higher theoretical compute?

A: The Arc A370M. It delivers 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16, against 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 for the HD 7950, which has no recorded FP16 rate.

Q: Which has more memory bandwidth?

A: The HD 7950, with 240.0 GB/s across a 384-bit GDDR5 bus. The A370M manages 112.0 GB/s on a 64-bit GDDR6 bus despite faster 14 Gbps effective memory.

Q: How large is the power difference?

A: Significant. The HD 7950 has a 200 W TDP with two 6-pin connectors and a suggested 550 W PSU. The A370M is rated at 35 W with no power connectors.

Q: Do either of these support ray tracing?

A: Only the Arc A370M, which includes 8 RT cores. The HD 7950 has no RT cores recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The HD 7950 wins wherever bandwidth and sustained benchmark throughput matter. Its 240.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth dwarfs the A370M's 112.0 GB/s, and its recorded benchmark average is the higher of the two. With 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs feeding a wide bus, it is the stronger choice for workloads that saturate memory, and its desktop PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and fixed display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, two mini-DisplayPort 1.2) make it a conventional full-size card for desktop systems with adequate cooling and power headroom.

The A370M wins on efficiency, feature currency, and peak rates. At 35 W it delivers higher FP32 compute, double the FP16 throughput, higher pixel and texture rates, hardware ray tracing, and DirectX 12 Ultimate with Vulkan 1.4 support. Its 6 nm node and 45.9M per mm² density make it dramatically smaller than the 28 nm, 352 mm² Tahiti die. For anything running on battery or inside a compact chassis, it is the only viable option of the two.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every axis. Process node: 28 nm for the HD 7950 versus 6 nm for the A370M. Transistor count: 4313 million versus 7200 million. Die size: 352 mm² versus 157 mm². Density: 12.3M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Shading units favor AMD at 1792 versus 1024; TMUs favor AMD at 112 versus 64; ROPs are tied at 32. FP32 compute favors Intel at 4.198 TFLOPS versus 2.867 TFLOPS, and only Intel records an FP16 figure. Pixel rate is 25.60 GPixel/s versus 65.60 GPixel/s; texture rate is 89.60 GTexel/s versus 131.2 GTexel/s.

Memory is 3 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus at 240.0 GB/s for the HD 7950, versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 112.0 GB/s for the A370M. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The A370M lists a 1550 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost; no clocks of that type are recorded for the HD 7950.

Power and form factor: 200 W TDP, dual-slot, two 6-pin connectors, 550 W suggested PSU for the HD 7950; 35 W TDP, IGP, no connectors for the A370M. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. API support is DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, with OpenGL 4.6 shared. Physical dimensions are recorded only for the HD 7950: 278 mm long, 111 mm high, 38 mm wide. Release dates are a decade apart, and the HD 7950 carries a launch MSRP of 449 USD, with no launch MSRP recorded for the A370M.