AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs NVIDIA Tesla M60 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon HD 7950 compare to the NVIDIA Tesla M60 in overall benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 7950 has an average benchmark score of 33,951, while the NVIDIA Tesla M60 averages 30,490. This places the HD 7950 roughly 11.3% ahead in aggregate recorded performance, though the two cards occupy similar percentile positions among all GPUs (78th versus 75th).

Q: What are the closest competing GPUs to each card according to the database?

A: The HD 7950's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 480 with an average score of 33,997, a negligible 0.1% difference. The Tesla M60's closest neighbor is the NVIDIA CMP 70HX at 30,476, which is effectively a 0% delta. Both cards sit within a tight cluster of similarly performing hardware.

Q: Which card has more memory and how does that affect its profile?

A: The Tesla M60 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the HD 7950 provides 3 GB on a wider 384-bit interface. Despite having less capacity, the HD 7950 achieves higher memory bandwidth at 240.0 GB/s versus the M60's 160.4 GB/s, a 49.6% advantage in raw throughput.

Q: What are the architectural differences in shading and texture capabilities?

A: The Tesla M60 packs 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, compared to the HD 7950's 1,792 shaders, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M60 also reaches higher peak rates: 75.39 GPixel/s pixel fill and 150.8 GTexel/s texture fill, versus 25.60 GPixel/s and 89.60 GTexel/s respectively.

Q: How do the clock speeds differ between the two cards?

A: The HD 7950 does not have recorded base or boost clock values in the database, but its memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Tesla M60 has a base clock of 557 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (also 5 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the power and connectivity situation for each card?

A: The HD 7950 has a 200 W TDP with dual 6-pin power connectors and a suggested 550 W PSU, while the Tesla M60 draws 300 W via a single 8-pin connector and suggests a 700 W PSU. The M60 has no display outputs, whereas the HD 7950 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

The Verdict

The data presents two very different tools disguised as comparable graphics processors. For anyone needing a display-capable card with strong memory bandwidth and a wider bus, the AMD Radeon HD 7950 is the clear choice. Its 240.0 GB/s bandwidth, 384-bit interface, and multiple display outputs make it suitable for workloads that stress memory throughput and require visual output. The HD 7950 also leads in average benchmark score by 3,461 points, and it holds a slightly higher percentile ranking at 78 versus 75.

The NVIDIA Tesla M60, however, targets a different audience entirely. With 8 GB of memory, double the HD 7950's capacity, and a much higher pixel fill rate at 75.39 GPixel/s, this card suits compute-heavy virtualized or server environments where memory capacity and fill rates matter more than display connectivity. Its 4.825 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 2.867 TFLOPS gives it a 68.3% computational edge, and its higher transistor count of 5,200 million versus 4,313 million indicates a more complex silicon design.

For a general-purpose desktop GPU, the HD 7950 wins on practicality. For a headless compute accelerator, the Tesla M60's specifications point toward superior raw performance in specific tasks. The benchmark averages tell only part of the story; the recorded data shows the HD 7950 outperforming the M60 in the aggregate, but the M60's architecture suggests it was built for sustained compute workloads rather than everyday graphics. Users should weigh the HD 7950's bandwidth and connectivity against the M60's memory capacity and fill-rate advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark tests between these two cards, but the individual benchmark results and aggregate scores provide a clear comparative picture. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 achieves 33,951 in the Geekbench Metal test, its only recorded benchmark. The NVIDIA Tesla M60 posts 29,506 in Geekbench OpenCL and 31,473 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average of 30,490 across those two runs.

The HD 7950's single score of 33,951 exceeds the M60's best result of 31,473 in Vulkan by 2,478 points, a 7.9% margin. Against the M60's OpenCL score of 29,506, the HD 7950 leads by 4,445 points, or 15.1%. The aggregate comparison shows the HD 7950 ahead by 3,461 points, translating to an 11.3% advantage in average recorded performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The HD 7950's 33,951 sits just 0.1% below the RX 480's 33,997 and 0.3% above the RX 7700S's 33,849, meaning it is effectively tied with these newer cards. The Tesla M60's 30,490 is within 0.2% of the RX 6700 and 1.3% of the RX 6800, showing it also clusters tightly with mid-range modern GPUs despite its age.

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture. At the 78th percentile, the HD 7950 outperforms roughly 78% of all GPUs in the database. The M60 at the 75th percentile sits three points lower, meaning it outperforms a slightly smaller share of the field. These are close positions, but the HD 7950 consistently edges ahead in the recorded metrics.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply across nearly every specification category. Memory capacity favors the Tesla M60 at 8 GB versus 3 GB, but the HD 7950 counters with a wider 384-bit bus compared to 256-bit, yielding 240.0 GB/s bandwidth against 160.4 GB/s. Both use GDDR5 memory, and effective speeds are nearly identical at 5 Gbps.

Compute resources differ substantially. The M60 has more shading units (2,048 versus 1,792), more TMUs (128 versus 112), and double the ROPs (64 versus 32). Its pixel rate of 75.39 GPixel/s is nearly triple the HD 7950's 25.60 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 150.8 GTexel/s exceeds 89.60 GTexel/s by 68.3%. FP32 throughput also favors the M60 at 4.825 TFLOPS versus 2.867 TFLOPS, a 68.3% advantage.

Power requirements scale with performance. The HD 7950 draws 200 W while the M60 draws 300 W, and suggested PSU ratings follow at 550 W and 700 W respectively. Power connectors differ: dual 6-pin for AMD, single 8-pin for NVIDIA. Physical dimensions are similar, with the HD 7950 at 278 mm length and the M60 slightly shorter at 267 mm. Both are dual-slot cards.

Display output is a major differentiator. The HD 7950 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla M60 offers no display outputs at all, confirming its server-oriented design. API support also differs, with the M60 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon HD 7950 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Southern Islands generation (HD 7900). It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The NVIDIA Tesla M60 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Tesla Maxwell generation (Mxx). It also uses TSMC's 28 nm process but packs 5,200 million transistors onto a larger 398 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². Its API support extends to DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The architectural philosophies differ markedly. GCN 1.0 was designed around parallel compute with a wide memory interface, while Maxwell 2.0 focused on efficiency and higher clock scaling. The M60's boost clock of 1178 MHz against its 557 MHz base represents a 111.5% potential uplift, indicating aggressive dynamic clocking. The HD 7950 has no recorded clock values, making direct frequency comparisons impossible from the data.

Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The M60's larger die and higher transistor count suggest a more complex design, but the HD 7950's wider memory bus compensates in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The M60's Maxwell architecture supports newer DirectX features (12_1 versus 11_1), which may matter for certain modern applications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 7950 wins in scenarios that prioritize memory bandwidth and display connectivity. Its 240.0 GB/s bandwidth, driven by the 384-bit bus, gives it a 49.6% advantage over the M60. This benefits high-resolution textures, large data sets, and any workload that saturates memory throughput. The HD 7950 also wins on aggregate benchmark score, leading by 3,461 points, and on its 78th percentile ranking versus the M60's 75th. For desktop users, the display outputs make it immediately usable, while the M60 requires a separate display solution.

The NVIDIA Tesla M60 wins in compute-heavy and capacity-sensitive environments. Its 8 GB memory capacity is 166.7% larger than the HD 7950's 3 GB, enabling larger models and datasets to reside in VRAM. Its FP32 throughput of 4.825 TFLOPS is 68.3% higher, and its pixel rate of 75.39 GPixel/s is nearly triple the HD 7950's. The M60's 64 ROPs versus 32 ROPs doubles the pixel processing capability, and its 150.8 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds the HD 7950 by 68.3%. These figures point toward rendering workloads, virtualization, and compute tasks that need sustained fill rates.

The M60 also wins on API currency, supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which may enable newer software features. Its 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die indicate a more robust silicon foundation. For power-constrained systems, however, the HD 7950's 200 W TDP versus 300 W represents a 33.3% lower power draw, and its 550 W suggested PSU versus 700 W eases system integration.

The choice ultimately depends on workload. The HD 7950 suits bandwidth-hungry desktop applications and any user needing video outputs. The M60 serves compute-centric deployments where memory capacity, fill rates, and raw FP32 performance take precedence over power efficiency and display support. The benchmark data shows the HD 7950 ahead in aggregate, but the M60's specification sheet reveals strengths that averages alone do not capture.