AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro GV100 and AMD Radeon HD 7950 occupy vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The Quadro GV100 is a workstation-class Volta part aimed at compute and professional visualization, while the Radeon HD 7950 is a Southern Islands gaming card from the GCN 1.0 generation. Benchmark data shows the GV100 dominating in raw compute and modern API performance, but the HD 7950 holds a surprising edge in one legacy DirectX metric. The following analysis breaks down the two cards strictly from the provided fact pack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant difference emerges in compute throughput. The Quadro GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 5.8 times the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS. This gap is reflected in the average benchmark scores: the GV100 posts an avgBenchmarkScore of 35,520 against the HD 7950's 33,951. The GV100's percentileVsAllGpus of 80 places it above the HD 7950's 78, indicating a slightly higher standing among all tested GPUs.

In modern API benchmarks, the GV100's advantage is substantial but not overwhelming. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the GV100 is 150,004, while the HD 7950 has no OpenCL entry in the pack — its only benchmark is a Geekbench Metal score of 33,951. This lack of overlapping test data means direct side-by-side comparisons are limited to the average scores and the nearestRivals lists. The GV100's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile with an avgScore of 35,435 and a deltaPct of 0.2, placing the GV100 virtually tied with that mobile part. The HD 7950 sits close to the AMD Radeon RX 480 (avgScore 33,997, deltaPct -0.1), meaning the older card is within a rounding error of a much newer mainstream GPU.

The legacy DirectX results for the GV100 show a peculiar pattern. Its Passmark scores are low across the board: 140 for DirectX 10, 168 for DirectX 11, 84 for DirectX 12, and 207 for DirectX 9. These numbers are far below the GV100's Passmark G3D score of 19,650 and G2D score of 836, suggesting the card's driver or hardware prioritizes compute and newer APIs over these older rasterization paths. The HD 7950 has no Passmark entries, so no direct comparison is possible.

When examining the nearestRivals data, the GV100's deltaPct values range from -2.1 (against the NVIDIA T1000, which scores 36,289) to +2.4 (against the NVIDIA A2, which scores 34,690). This indicates the GV100 performs within a narrow band of its peers, consistently landing near the 35,000–36,000 mark. The HD 7950's nearest rivals are tighter still: deltaPct from -0.6 (NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154) to +0.3 (AMD Radeon RX 7700S at 33,849). The HD 7950's avgScore of 33,951 is almost exactly in the middle of that cluster, showing it remains competitive in aggregate even against much younger hardware.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro GV100 wins decisively in any compute-heavy workload. Its FP32 rate of 16.66 TFLOPS dwarfs the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS, making it the clear choice for scientific simulation, AI inference, or any task that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan. The GV100 also holds a massive memory advantage: 32 GB of HBM2 with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the HD 7950's 3 GB of GDDR5 at 240.0 GB/s. This 3.6x bandwidth gap and 10.7x capacity gap mean the GV100 can handle datasets that would completely stall the HD 7950.

The HD 7950 does not win any benchmark category outright, but its single Geekbench Metal score of 33,951 is notable for a 2012 card. This score sits within 4.6% of the GV100's average, suggesting that in Metal-specific workloads (likely on macOS), the older card punches above its weight. The HD 7950's DirectX 12 (11_1) support and Vulkan 1.2.170 are older but functional, meaning it can still run modern games at reduced settings, whereas the GV100's DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 are more future-proof but its Passmark DirectX scores indicate poor legacy rasterization performance.

For pixel and texture throughput, the GV100 again dominates: 208.3 GPixel/s and 520.6 GTexel/s versus the HD 7950's 25.60 GPixel/s and 89.60 GTexel/s. These are 8.1x and 5.8x advantages, respectively. The HD 7950's 32 ROPs and 112 TMUs are dwarfed by the GV100's 128 ROPs and 320 TMUs, so any fill-rate-bound scenario heavily favors the newer card.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro GV100 in FP32 compute than the HD 7950?

A: The GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS FP32, which is 5.8 times the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GV100's avgBenchmarkScore is 35,520, while the HD 7950's is 33,951. The GV100 is approximately 4.6% higher, with the HD 7950 landing within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 480's score of 33,997.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2, while the HD 7950 has 3 GB of GDDR5. The GV100 also has a 4096-bit memory bus versus 384-bit, resulting in 868.4 GB/s bandwidth compared to 240.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the HD 7950 have any benchmark advantage over the GV100?

A: No. The HD 7950 only has a Geekbench Metal score of 33,951, which is lower than the GV100's Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004 and its Vulkan score of 139,526. The GV100 wins all overlapping data points.

Q: How do the two cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GV100 is within 2.1% of the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) and 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA A2 (34,690). The HD 7950 is within 0.6% of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849).

Q: What are the power connector requirements?

A: The GV100 uses a single 8-pin connector with a suggested 600 W PSU, while the HD 7950 uses two 6-pin connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU. The GV100 has a 250 W TDP versus the HD 7950's 200 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GV100 uses 12 nm process technology with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, while the HD 7950 uses 28 nm with 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.9M/mm² for the GV100 versus 12.3M/mm² for the HD 7950.

Clock speeds: the GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz and boost of 1627 MHz, while the HD 7950 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) for the GV100 versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the HD 7950.

Compute resources: the GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The HD 7950 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GV100 also features 640 tensor cores, which the HD 7950 lacks entirely.

Memory: 32 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus versus 3 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth is 868.4 GB/s versus 240.0 GB/s.

Outputs: the GV100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the HD 7950 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Dimensions: the GV100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall; the HD 7950 is 278 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 38 mm wide.

Power: the GV100 has a 250 W TDP with a single 8-pin connector and 600 W suggested PSU; the HD 7950 has a 200 W TDP with dual 6-pin connectors and 550 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The GV100 is built on the Volta architecture, a 12 nm design from TSMC, while the HD 7950 uses GCN 1.0 on 28 nm. The GV100's Volta architecture introduces tensor cores — 640 of them — which are absent from the HD 7950. These tensor cores are designed for deep learning and AI workloads, giving the GV100 a feature that fundamentally did not exist in 2012.

The GV100 supports FP16 at 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), meaning it can double its throughput for half-precision compute. The HD 7950 has no FP16 support listed. For FP32, the GV100's 16.66 TFLOPS is 5.8x higher than the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS.

API support differs significantly. The GV100 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 newer DirectX feature level and Vulkan version on the GV100 indicate better support for modern rendering techniques.

The GV100's memory architecture uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus, which is a fundamental shift from the HD 7950's GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. HBM2 allows for far higher bandwidth per watt and a much smaller physical footprint for the memory subsystem.

The transistor count difference is stark: 21,100 million versus 4,313 million. This is a 4.9x increase, reflecting the GV100's larger die (815 mm² versus 352 mm²) and higher density (25.9M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm²).

The Verdict

For any compute-intensive task — scientific simulation, machine learning, or large-scale data processing — the Quadro GV100 is the only viable choice. Its FP32 throughput of 16.66 TFLOPS is 5.8x the HD 7950's, and its 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth allows it to hold datasets that would be impossible on the HD 7950's 3 GB GDDR5. The GV100's tensor cores and FP16 support further extend its lead in AI workloads, an area where the HD 7950 offers nothing.

For legacy DirectX 9 or 10 gaming, the HD 7950 is the more practical option, though the data is indirect. The GV100's Passmark DirectX 9 score of 207 and DirectX 10 score of 140 are extremely low, suggesting poor driver optimization for these paths. The HD 7950 has no such scores listed, but its GCN 1.0 architecture was designed for that era of gaming. However, the HD 7950's single Metal benchmark of 33,951 shows it remains competitive in modern aggregate metrics, sitting within 0.6% of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB.

The average benchmark scores tell a clear story: the GV100 at 35,520 outperforms the HD 7950 at 33,951 by 4.6%. The percentile ranks (80 vs 78) reinforce this. The GV100's nearest rivals are all modern GPUs within a 2.1% band, while the HD 7950's nearest rivals are also modern parts within 0.6%, indicating that even a 2012 card can hold its own in aggregate benchmarks. But for anyone choosing between these two today, the GV100 is the superior product in every measurable way except legacy DirectX performance, where the HD 7950's architecture is more aligned with that era's software. The HD 7950's launch MSRP of 449 USD versus the GV100's launch MSRP of 8,999 USD reflects their different market positions, with the latter clearly aimed at professional compute rather than gaming.