AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data places the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile and the AMD Radeon HD 7950 in different performance tiers, with the NVIDIA part holding a significant lead in raw compute scores. The RTX A500 Mobile achieves an average benchmark score of 39,568 across its tested workloads, while the HD 7950 records an average of 33,951. This translates to a performance gap of roughly 16.5% in favor of the newer NVIDIA adapter, based on the delta between their respective average scores.

Looking at individual tests, the RTX A500 Mobile posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 41,263 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,873. The HD 7950's only recorded benchmark is a Geekbench Metal score of 33,951. While the tests are not directly comparable across different API families, the overall average scores provide the clearest signal: the RTX A500 Mobile sits at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, whereas the HD 7950 lands at the 78th percentile. That four-point percentile difference underscores a consistent, if not overwhelming, edge for the Ampere-based mobile part.

The RTX A500 Mobile's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (average score 39,555, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116, delta 1.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, delta -1.2%). This clustering shows the A500 Mobile is competitive with mid-range workstation GPUs of its era, trading blows within a narrow band of roughly 2% around its own score. Against the HD 7950, however, the gap is much wider: the Radeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, delta -0.6%), placing the HD 7950 firmly in a lower performance bracket.

The data indicates that the RTX A500 Mobile wins every head-to-head comparison available in the database. There are no recorded benchmark wins for the HD 7950 against the A500 Mobile. The margin is substantial enough that the HD 7950 would need to gain over 5,600 points in average score to match the NVIDIA part, a difference that reflects not just architectural evolution but also a decade of progress in GPU compute efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 8,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon HD 7950 is built on the Tahiti chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,313 million transistors spread across a much larger 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 12.3 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the NVIDIA part crams over three times as many transistors into a smaller physical area.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The RTX A500 Mobile ships with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 7950 offers 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, producing 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having less total memory, the AMD card's wider bus gives it 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, a significant advantage for bandwidth-hungry workloads. Clock speeds tell another story: the A500 Mobile runs at a base of 832 MHz and boosts to 1537 MHz, while the HD 7950 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ in both quantity and type. The RTX A500 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the HD 7950, which has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part's FP32 throughput is 6.296 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance matches at 6.296 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The HD 7950 manages 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the A500 Mobile achieves 49.18 GPixel/s and 98.37 GTexel/s, while the HD 7950 hits 25.60 GPixel/s and 89.60 GTexel/s.

Feature support also separates the two. The RTX A500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card's newer API levels reflect its modern architecture, including hardware ray tracing and tensor core acceleration. The HD 7950, as a GCN 1.0 part, lacks those dedicated hardware blocks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A500 Mobile wins on raw compute performance, modern feature support, and efficiency. Its FP32 throughput of 6.296 TFLOPS is more than double the HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS, making it the clear choice for general-purpose compute tasks, machine learning inference, and any workload that can leverage tensor cores or ray tracing. The A500 Mobile's 30 W TDP is dramatically lower than the HD 7950's 200 W, meaning it delivers far more performance per watt. Its integrated form factor (IGP) and lack of power connectors make it suitable for compact or mobile systems where space and power are constrained.

The HD 7950 wins on memory bandwidth and sheer board footprint. Its 240.0 GB/s bandwidth is 2.5 times that of the A500 Mobile, which could benefit workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound, such as large texture streaming or certain scientific simulations. The HD 7950 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, which historically helps at high resolutions with large framebuffers. Its 3 GB of VRAM, while smaller than the A500 Mobile's 4 GB, is paired with that wider bus to move data more efficiently. The card's dual-slot design and dual 6-pin power connectors indicate it was built for desktop workstations, not portable devices.

In practice, the benchmark data shows the A500 Mobile dominates in compute-oriented tests. The HD 7950's single recorded benchmark, a Metal score of 33,951, does not come close to the A500 Mobile's OpenCL or Vulkan results. The absence of any recorded wins for the HD 7950 in head-to-head comparisons reinforces that this is a lopsided matchup. For users prioritizing modern API support, ray tracing, tensor operations, and low power draw, the A500 Mobile is the obvious pick. For those who need maximum memory bandwidth in a legacy desktop system and can tolerate high power consumption, the HD 7950 retains some niche appeal.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile delivers 6.296 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the AMD Radeon HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS. The A500 Mobile also achieves an average benchmark score of 39,568 versus 33,951 for the HD 7950.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 7950 has 3 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth, giving the AMD card 2.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Does the HD 7950 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The HD 7950 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A500 Mobile includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores as part of its Ampere architecture.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors. The HD 7950 has a TDP of 200 W, needs two 6-pin power connectors, and has a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: Which API versions does each GPU support?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do their percentiles compare in the database?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile sits at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, while the HD 7950 is at the 78th percentile. This reflects the A500 Mobile's higher average benchmark score and overall better standing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 64 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| FP32 | 6.296 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.296 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| Pixel Rate | 49.18 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 98.37 GTexel/s | 89.60 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 30 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

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

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | 2012-01-30 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing-M | Northern Islands |

| Successor | Ada-MW | Sea Islands |

| Launch MSRP | None | 449 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 39,568 | 33,951 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 82 | 78 |