AMD Radeon HD 7950 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two cards, though the comparison is limited by the fact that they were tested with different benchmark suites. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 has an average benchmark score of 37,628, while the AMD Radeon HD 7950 trails at 33,951 — a difference of roughly 10.8% in favor of the Tesla P4. This places the Tesla P4 in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon HD 7950 sits in the 78th percentile, confirming that the performance gap is meaningful but not overwhelming.

Looking at the Tesla P4's individual results, it scores 34,947 in Geekbench OpenCL and 40,309 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan result is particularly strong — it represents a 15.3% improvement over the card's OpenCL score, suggesting the Pascal architecture handles modern compute APIs more efficiently. The Radeon HD 7950, by contrast, only has a single Geekbench Metal score of 33,951, which is 2.9% below the Tesla P4's OpenCL score and 18.7% below the Tesla P4's Vulkan score. This cross-API comparison is imperfect, but the pattern is clear: the Tesla P4 delivers substantially higher raw compute performance regardless of the API being used.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both cards perform as expected for their era. The Tesla P4's average score of 37,628 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507). The Radeon HD 7950's 33,951 average puts it 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997) and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133). These deltaPct values show that both cards are competitive with much newer hardware in their respective performance tiers, though the Tesla P4 is competing in a higher tier altogether.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce this gap. The Tesla P4 delivers 5.704 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon HD 7950 manages only 2.867 TFLOPS — the Tesla P4 is almost exactly twice as fast in raw floating-point throughput. This is a massive advantage for the NVIDIA card, and it explains why its benchmark scores are consistently higher across every test. The Tesla P4 also leads decisively in pixel rate (71.30 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (178.2 GTexel/s versus 89.60 GTexel/s), with the pixel rate advantage being particularly striking at 2.8x.

The Verdict

The data makes the verdict straightforward: the NVIDIA Tesla P4 is the superior performer in every measurable category. Its FP32 throughput is 99% higher, its pixel rate is 179% higher, and its texture rate is 99% higher than the Radeon HD 7950. The benchmark scores align with these specifications, with the Tesla P4 averaging 10.8% higher across all tests. Anyone comparing these two cards for compute workloads should choose the Tesla P4 without hesitation — the performance advantage is too large to ignore.

However, the Radeon HD 7950 is not without its own merits in specific contexts. It offers a higher memory bandwidth of 240.0 GB/s compared to the Tesla P4's 192.3 GB/s — a 24.8% advantage that could matter for memory-bound workloads. It also has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2), while the Tesla P4 has no display outputs at all, making the Radeon the only viable choice for direct display connectivity. The Radeon HD 7950's launch MSRP was 449 USD, which provides a reference point for its original market positioning.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a current purchase recommendation in the traditional sense. But for archival comparisons, the verdict is clear: the Tesla P4 is the compute powerhouse, while the Radeon HD 7950 is the legacy card with display capabilities and wider memory bandwidth. The Tesla P4 also has a major power efficiency advantage — its 75 W TDP is just 37.5% of the Radeon HD 7950's 200 W TDP, meaning it delivers roughly double the FP32 performance at less than half the power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 uses the Pascal architecture on the GP104 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the Tahiti chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 4,313 million transistors spread across a larger 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

The process node advantage is stark: 16 nm versus 28 nm. This explains why the Tesla P4 achieves nearly double the transistor density in a smaller die, which in turn enables its dramatically higher performance per watt. The Tesla P4's 75 W TDP versus the Radeon HD 7950's 200 W TDP is a direct consequence of this manufacturing advantage.

The memory subsystems differ significantly as well. The Tesla P4 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon HD 7950 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus. The wider bus gives the Radeon a bandwidth advantage (240.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s), but the Tesla P4 has over 2.6x more memory capacity. The Tesla P4's memory clock is also higher at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) compared to the Radeon's 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The compute resources show a clear NVIDIA advantage. The Tesla P4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the Radeon HD 7950 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The shading unit count is 43% higher on the Tesla, TMUs are 43% higher, and ROPs are exactly double. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so the comparison is purely on traditional rasterization and compute hardware.

The Tesla P4 also has a notable FP16 capability, rated at 89.12 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the Radeon HD 7950 has no FP16 figure listed. This suggests the NVIDIA card has at least some half-precision compute support, though the 1:64 ratio indicates it is heavily rate-limited compared to FP32.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 delivers 5.704 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the Radeon HD 7950's 2.867 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Radeon HD 7950 have any performance advantages?

A: Yes, it has a 24.8% higher memory bandwidth (240.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s) due to its wider 384-bit bus, which could benefit memory-bound workloads.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Tesla P4 has a 75 W TDP versus the Radeon HD 7950's 200 W TDP, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers roughly double the FP32 performance at 37.5% of the power draw.

Q: Can either card connect to displays?

A: Only the Radeon HD 7950 has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2). The Tesla P4 has no display outputs at all, making it a compute-only card.

Q: How do these cards compare in API support?

A: The Tesla P4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon HD 7950 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 — the Tesla P4 has higher Vulkan and DirectX feature support.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla P4 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon HD 7950 has 3 GB — the NVIDIA card offers 2.6x more memory capacity, which is critical for large datasets.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 wins decisively in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 5.704 TFLOPS FP32 performance, combined with 8 GB of memory and a 75 W TDP, makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, and any workload that benefits from high shading unit counts. The Tesla P4's 43% more shading units and 100% more ROPs than the Radeon HD 7950 translate directly into faster pixel and texture processing, as evidenced by its 2.8x higher pixel rate and 99% higher texture rate. Its 81st percentile ranking versus the Radeon's 78th percentile further confirms its overall performance superiority.

The Radeon HD 7950 wins in scenarios that depend on memory bandwidth and display connectivity. Its 240.0 GB/s bandwidth is 24.8% higher than the Tesla P4's 192.3 GB/s, which can be decisive for workloads that stream large amounts of data through the memory subsystem without heavy compute requirements. The card's display outputs make it the only option for direct monitor attachment, and its 28 nm Tahiti architecture, while older, still provides 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 compute — enough for legacy gaming and basic compute tasks. The Radeon also has a larger physical footprint (278 mm length versus 168 mm), which may allow for more substantial cooling solutions.

For modern compute workloads, the Tesla P4 is the overwhelming winner. Its Vulkan score of 40,309 is 18.7% higher than the Radeon's Metal score of 33,951, and its OpenCL score of 34,947 is still 2.9% higher. The Tesla P4's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the Radeon's Vulkan 1.2.170 also means better forward compatibility with newer software. For legacy use cases where display output is required, the Radeon HD 7950 remains functional, but the data shows it is outclassed in every compute metric that matters for modern workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla P4 | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 160 | 112 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 5.704 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 71.30 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 178.2 GTexel/s | 89.60 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 75 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Card Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 278 mm (10.9 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-09-12 | 2012-01-30 |