AMD Radeon HD 7970M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 7970M and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile and workstation graphics, separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational gap, with the Pro W5500 dominating the single shared benchmark, yet each card retains a specific profile that suits different workloads. This analysis breaks down where each GPU excels based strictly on the provided benchmark results and hardware specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast in capabilities. In the only directly comparable test, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 45,615, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17,019. This is a decisive victory for the newer card, which delivers 2.6 times the raw compute performance in this API. The deltaPct of -62.7% indicates the HD 7970M is that far behind, making the Pro W5500 the unequivocal winner for any OpenCL-accelerated compute task, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing.

However, the victory is not solely about raw speed. The Pro W5500 also wins on versatility, as it is the only card of the two with a multi-faceted benchmark profile. The data includes results for Metal (54,302), Vulkan (42,021), and a suite of Passmark tests (DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute). The HD 7970M has zero recorded wins in any other category, meaning its benchmark presence is limited to that single OpenCL score. For users operating in ecosystems that leverage Metal (macOS) or Vulkan, the Pro W5500 is the only viable option based on this data.

The HD 7970M’s sole advantage appears to be its physical form factor. As an MXM Module, it is designed for laptop integration, whereas the Pro W5500 is a single-slot desktop card. This makes the HD 7970M the only choice for a portable system, even if its performance is vastly inferior. For a fixed workstation, the Pro W5500’s desktop design is more appropriate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different process nodes. The HD 7970M uses the "Wimbledon" chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Pro W5500 uses the "Navi 14" chip with the RDNA 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a much newer 7 nm node. This node difference is substantial: the Pro W5500 packs 6,400 million transistors into a smaller 158 mm² die, whereas the HD 7970M contains only 2,800 million transistors on a larger 212 mm² die. The resulting transistor density is 40.5M / mm² for the Pro W5500 versus 13.2M / mm² for the HD 7970M, highlighting the massive efficiency and density gains of the newer process.

The core configurations differ as well. The Pro W5500 has 1,408 shading units and 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), while the HD 7970M has 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs. This gives the Pro W5500 a modest lead in raw shader count, but the architectural differences amplify this advantage. The RDNA 1.0 architecture in the Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the older GCN 1.0 in the HD 7970M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the Pro W5500 is compatible with more modern graphics APIs and features.

Memory subsystems are also generations apart. The HD 7970M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro W5500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but achieves significantly higher bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks. The Pro W5500’s memory operates at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for the HD 7970M. This combination of higher capacity and higher bandwidth is critical for modern workloads with large datasets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are not close. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 45,615, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17,019. The deltaPct of -62.7% means the HD 7970M is 62.7% slower than the Pro W5500 in this test. This is the single largest data point in the comparison and effectively sums up the generational gap.

To put this in context, the Pro W5500’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, with a deltaPct of 0.8%, meaning the Pro W5500 is just 0.8% behind that high-end card in average benchmark score. The HD 7970M, by contrast, is closest to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690, with a deltaPct of -0.1%, essentially tied with that dual-GPU card. This places the two AMD cards in completely different performance tiers, despite the HD 7970M’s percentile rank of 60 versus the Pro W5500’s 58. The percentile ranking is misleading here; the Pro W5500’s average benchmark score of 15,679 is dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 39 for DirectX 12, 47 for DirectX 10), which are not representative of its OpenCL compute capability.

The Pro W5500 also shows strong results in other APIs, with a Geekbench Metal score of 54,302 and a Vulkan score of 42,021. These are not directly comparable to the HD 7970M, which has no such scores, but they demonstrate the Pro W5500’s ability to perform well across different compute and graphics interfaces. The HD 7970M’s single score of 17,019 in OpenCL is its only data point, and it is far below the Pro W5500’s OpenCL result.

The Verdict

Based on the data, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior GPU for almost all use cases. In compute workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL, it is 62.7% faster than the HD 7970M. It also offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB of GDDR5, providing both more capacity and higher bandwidth, which is essential for professional applications. The Pro W5500 supports newer APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, and has a full suite of benchmark results in Metal, Vulkan, and various Passmark tests, indicating broad driver and software support. Its 5.224 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 10.45 TFLOPS FP16 performance (2:1) dwarf the HD 7970M’s 2.176 TFLOPS FP32.

The only scenario where the HD 7970M is the logical pick is when the physical form factor is the primary constraint. As an MXM Module, it is designed for laptops and portable devices, while the Pro W5500 is a single-slot desktop card with a 241 mm length and 111 mm height. If a mobile solution is required, the HD 7970M is the only option, despite its older architecture and lower performance. For a desktop workstation, the Pro W5500 is the clear winner, with its launch MSRP of 399 USD reflecting a professional-grade product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is significantly faster, scoring 45,615 compared to the AMD Radeon HD 7970M’s 17,019, a lead of 62.7% over the older card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 7970M have any benchmark wins?

A: No. The data shows the HD 7970M has zero wins in any recorded benchmark, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has one win in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: What are the memory capacity and type differences?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M has 2 GB of GDDR5. The Pro W5500 also has higher bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a laptop?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 7970M is the only option for a laptop, as it is an MXM Module. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is a single-slot desktop card.

Q: What is the difference in supported DirectX versions?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This indicates the Pro W5500 is compliant with more recent API features.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of transistor count?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has 6,400 million transistors, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970M has 2,800 million. The Pro W5500 achieves this on a smaller 158 mm² die versus 212 mm².

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon HD 7970M | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | Wimbledon | Navi 14 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Memory | 2 GB GDDR5 | 8 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 80 | 88 |

| Pixel Rate | 27.20 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 68.00 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.176 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 241 mm (9.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 17019 | 15679 |