AMD Radeon HD 7970M vs AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the AMD Radeon HD 7970M and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 points, while the HD 7970M manages 17,019 points. That puts the newer card ahead by 63.8 percent, a massive gap that reflects the generational leap in compute throughput.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 5500 XT’s OpenCL score is not an outlier. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 14,692, which places it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs. The HD 7970M, with only the single OpenCL entry, sits at 17,019 points and the 60th percentile. The percentile difference is small, but the raw score gap in the shared test is what matters here.

The HD 7970M’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037 points, 0.1 percent higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17,083 points, 0.4 percent higher), and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932 points, 0.5 percent lower). This clustering shows that the HD 7970M’s OpenCL performance is squarely in line with mid-range GPUs from several generations, but it is nowhere near the RX 5500 XT’s compute output.

For the RX 5500 XT, its nearest rivals tell a different story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 averages 14,747 points, only 0.4 percent higher than the RX 5500 XT’s average. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 sits at 14,385 points, 2.1 percent lower. This suggests that the RX 5500 XT’s overall benchmark profile is competitive with older high-end cards and modern integrated graphics, but its OpenCL result specifically is far above that average, driven by the efficiency of its architecture.

In the head-to-head comparison, the RX 5500 XT wins the only available test. The HD 7970M has zero recorded wins, while the RX 5500 XT has one. That is a clean sweep, but the single-test nature of the comparison means the verdict rests entirely on compute performance rather than a broader suite of gaming or professional workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and different design philosophies. The HD 7970M uses the Wimbledon chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip, built on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at the same foundry. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 7 nm is the fundamental driver of the performance gap.

Transistor counts illustrate the density advantage of the newer process. The HD 7970M packs 2,800 million transistors onto a 212 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 5500 XT crams 6,400 million transistors onto a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. That is more than triple the density, allowing the newer chip to fit far more logic into a smaller physical footprint.

Core counts differ as well. The HD 7970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The shading unit and TMU counts are higher on the RX 5500 XT, but not dramatically so. The real difference comes from clock speeds and architectural efficiency.

The HD 7970M’s memory runs at 1200 MHz, with an effective data rate of 4.8 Gbps. It uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1750 MHz and an effective rate of 14 Gbps. That combination yields 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly 46 percent higher despite the narrower bus.

Clock speeds are starkly different. The HD 7970M has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, so direct clock comparisons are not possible. The RX 5500 XT, however, has a base clock of 1607 MHz, a game clock of 1717 MHz, and a boost clock of 1845 MHz. These high clocks, combined with the RDNA architecture’s improved instruction efficiency, explain much of the performance delta.

Compute rates confirm the gap. The HD 7970M delivers 2.176 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, with a pixel rate of 27.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 68.00 GTexel/s. The RX 5500 XT delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32, a pixel rate of 59.04 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 162.4 GTexel/s. The newer card is roughly 2.4 times faster in raw FP32 throughput, and its pixel and texture rates are more than double.

The RX 5500 XT also supports FP16 at 10.39 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the HD 7970M lacks entirely. API support differs as well: the HD 7970M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 5500 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. OpenGL is 4.6 for both.

Power and physical design diverge significantly. The HD 7970M is an MXM module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The RX 5500 XT is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector, a 130 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RX 5500 XT measures 180 mm in length (7.1 inches), while the HD 7970M’s dimensions are not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500 XT wins on every measurable front in the shared benchmark, but the HD 7970M has its own niche. As an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no external power connectors, it is purpose-built for laptops and compact systems where space and power are at a premium. The RX 5500 XT, with its dual-slot design and 8-pin connector, requires a standard desktop chassis and a more robust power supply.

For compute workloads, the RX 5500 XT is clearly superior. Its OpenCL score of 46,965 is 63.8 percent higher than the HD 7970M’s 17,019. The newer card’s FP32 throughput of 5.196 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS means tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or GPU-accelerated computation will complete in roughly half the time, all else being equal.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the RX 5500 XT. With 4 GB of GDDR6 versus 2 GB of GDDR5, the newer card can handle larger textures and datasets without spilling to system memory. Its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is substantially higher than the HD 7970M’s 153.6 GB/s, which benefits both gaming at high resolutions and compute workloads that stream data.

The HD 7970M’s advantage is historical and form-factor specific. It was released in 2012, and its 60th percentile ranking shows it was a solid performer for its era. For anyone maintaining a legacy MXM-based system, it remains a functional option. But against the RX 5500 XT, there is no workload where the older card comes out ahead in the recorded data.

The RX 5500 XT’s broader benchmark suite provides additional context. Its Passmark G3D score is 9,083, with a G2D score of 774 and a GPU compute score of 4,446. DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 scores are 56 and 133, respectively, while DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores are 46 and 40. The Vulkan score is 44,191 and the Metal score is 54,842. These numbers paint a picture of a card that is balanced across legacy and modern APIs, though the HD 7970M has no comparable results in the database for these tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 7970M in the only directly comparable benchmark by 63.8 percent. It achieves this with a smaller die (158 mm² versus 212 mm²), a more advanced process node (7 nm versus 28 nm), more memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), and higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s). Its FP32 compute rate is 5.196 TFLOPS, more than double the HD 7970M’s 2.176 TFLOPS.

The HD 7970M is not without merit in its original context. As an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, it was designed for portable systems where the RX 5500 XT cannot physically fit. Its 60th percentile ranking is respectable, and its OpenCL score of 17,019 places it within 1.1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 in the database, a notable result for a 2012 part.

However, for any new purchase or upgrade decision, the RX 5500 XT is the clear choice. It offers roughly 2.4 times the FP32 throughput, more than double the pixel and texture rates, and support for newer API features like FP16 compute. Its 57th percentile ranking is slightly lower than the HD 7970M’s 60th, but that is an artifact of averaging across many more benchmark entries, including weaker results in some older DirectX tests.

Pick the RX 5500 XT if you need a modern desktop GPU with strong compute performance, ample memory, and support for the latest graphics APIs. Pick the HD 7970M only if you are constrained to an MXM form factor and cannot upgrade to a newer module. The data shows no other reason to choose the older card.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT than the AMD Radeon HD 7970M in OpenCL?

A: The RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the HD 7970M scores 17,019. That is a 63.8 percent advantage for the RX 5500 XT.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The HD 7970M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 5500 XT has 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the HD 7970M’s 13.2 million per square millimeter. The RX 5500 XT also has more total transistors: 6,400 million versus 2,800 million.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The RX 5500 XT delivers 5.196 TFLOPS, while the HD 7970M delivers 2.176 TFLOPS. The newer card is more than twice as fast in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: No. The HD 7970M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5500 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The HD 7970M has a 100 W TDP, is an MXM module, and requires no power connectors. The RX 5500 XT has a 130 W TDP, is a dual-slot card, uses one 8-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.