AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs AMD Radeon RX 5500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M and AMD Radeon RX 5500M occupy the same 54th percentile in the database’s GPU rankings, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 13,376 for the HD 8950M versus 13,356 for the RX 5500M, a difference of just 0.2%. This statistical tie in overall standing masks a dramatic divergence in raw compute capability, as the RX 5500M’s newer architecture delivers multi-generational leaps in specific workloads. The HD 8950M, a GCN 2.0 part from the Solar System generation, is end-of-life and relies on a 28 nm process, while the RX 5500M belongs to the Navi Mobile generation with RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm node. The data shows that while these two cards are peers in aggregate scoring, their performance profiles are anything but equal, with the RX 5500M dominating in every head-to-head test recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database includes two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins both by overwhelming margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 5500M scores 38,725 against the HD 8950M’s 13,772, producing a delta of -64.4% from the RX 5500M’s perspective—meaning the HD 8950M trails by roughly 181% of its own score. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete overhaul of compute throughput. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 5500M again dominates with 35,693 points versus 12,979 for the HD 8950M, a -63.6% delta. Both results underscore that the RX 5500M’s RDNA architecture is fundamentally more efficient at executing parallel workloads, nearly tripling the HD 8950M’s raw scores.

Despite these sweeping wins, the aggregate benchmark averages tell a different story. The HD 8950M’s average score of 13,376 actually edges out the RX 5500M’s 13,356 by a hair, with a deltaPct of 0.2% in the HD 8950M’s favor when viewed from its own nearestRivals list. The RX 5500M’s nearestRivals data flips the perspective, showing the HD 8950M at -0.1% relative to the RX 5500M. This paradox arises because the HD 8950M has only two benchmark entries—both in the 12,000–14,000 range—while the RX 5500M’s average is pulled down by a broader suite that includes PassMark tests with low scores (e.g., 28 in DirectX 12, 35 in DirectX 11) alongside its massive Geekbench Metal score of 50,359. The head-to-head tests, however, are unambiguous: the RX 5500M is the clear winner in every direct comparison.

The HD 8950M’s best performance comes in its Vulkan score of 12,979, which is actually lower than its OpenCL score of 13,772. This suggests the older GCN 2.0 architecture handles OpenCL slightly better than Vulkan, though both are far behind the RX 5500M. The RX 5500M’s Vulkan score of 35,693 is 2.75 times higher than the HD 8950M’s Vulkan result, while its OpenCL score is 2.81 times higher. The nearestRivals for the HD 8950M include the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407) and Pro 555X (13,321), both within 0.4% of its average, indicating that the HD 8950M’s real competition is among older mobile workstation GPUs, not the modern RX 5500M. For the RX 5500M, its nearest rivals are the same Pro 555X (13,321) and Pro 555 (13,407), showing that its average is pulled down to match these older parts despite its superior peak performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 13,376 compared to the RX 5500M’s 13,356, a difference of only 0.2% in the HD 8950M’s favor. However, this average is based on only two Geekbench tests for the HD 8950M, while the RX 5500M’s average incorporates ten tests including several PassMark entries.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5500M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 5500M scores 38,725 while the HD 8950M scores 13,772, making the RX 5500M approximately 181% faster—a delta of -64.4% from the RX 5500M’s perspective, meaning the HD 8950M retains only about 35.6% of the RX 5500M’s performance.

Q: Does the HD 8950M win any benchmark test?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data shows the RX 5500M winning both recorded tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The HD 8950M records zero wins in the head-to-head comparisons, while the RX 5500M records two wins.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for both GPUs?

A: Both the AMD Radeon HD 8950M and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M are ranked at the 54th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This identical percentile explains why their average scores are so close, despite the RX 5500M’s vastly superior raw compute results.

Q: How do the memory specifications differ?

A: The HD 8950M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 88.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 5500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5500M’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) for the HD 8950M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RX 5500M achieves a pixel rate of 52.64 GPixel/s, more than three times the HD 8950M’s 17.20 GPixel/s. Similarly, the RX 5500M’s texture rate of 144.8 GTexel/s far exceeds the HD 8950M’s 51.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, spanning six years of AMD’s design evolution. The HD 8950M uses the GCN 2.0 architecture on the Saturn chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.0 million per mm². In contrast, the RX 5500M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture on the Navi 14 chip, also from TSMC but on a 7 nm process, packing 6,400 million transistors into a slightly smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a density of 40.5 million per mm²—more than three times the HD 8950M’s density.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The HD 8950M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the RX 5500M offers 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This near-doubling of shading units and TMUs, combined with double the ROPs, explains the RX 5500M’s superior pixel and texture rates. The HD 8950M’s FP32 throughput is 1.651 TFLOPS, while the RX 5500M reaches 4.632 TFLOPS—a 2.8x advantage. The RX 5500M also supports FP16 at 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature absent from the HD 8950M’s spec sheet.

API support marks another generational divide. The HD 8950M supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4—the newer Vulkan version and higher DirectX feature level indicating better support for modern rendering techniques. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, but the RX 5500M’s RDNA architecture is designed for efficiency, with a lower TDP of 85 W versus the HD 8950M’s 100 W despite delivering far higher performance. The RX 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the HD 8950M uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the RX 5500M’s interface offers double the per-lane bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear divergences across nearly every measurable field. Process node: the HD 8950M uses 28 nm, the RX 5500M uses 7 nm. Transistor count: 2,080 million versus 6,400 million. Die size: 160 mm² versus 158 mm². Memory: the HD 8950M has 2 GB GDDR5 at 88.00 GB/s, while the RX 5500M has 4 GB GDDR6 at 224.0 GB/s—both with a 128-bit bus, but the RX 5500M’s bandwidth is 2.5 times higher.

Clocks: the HD 8950M lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective). The RX 5500M has a base clock of 1375 MHz, a boost of 1645 MHz, a game clock of 1448 MHz, and a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Shading units: 768 versus 1,408. TMUs: 48 versus 88. ROPs: 16 versus 32. Pixel rate: 17.20 GPixel/s versus 52.64 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 51.60 GTexel/s versus 144.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 1.651 TFLOPS versus 4.632 TFLOPS. FP16: not listed for the HD 8950M, versus 9.265 TFLOPS for the RX 5500M.

TDP: 100 W for the HD 8950M, 85 W for the RX 5500M. Slot width: the HD 8950M uses an MXM Module form factor, while the RX 5500M lists no slot width. Power connectors: the HD 8950M has none listed, the RX 5500M explicitly lists “None.” Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. DirectX version: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan version: 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Release dates: 2013-05-13 for the HD 8950M, 2019-10-06 for the RX 5500M. The HD 8950M’s predecessor is London and successor is Gem System; the RX 5500M’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile with no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload priorities. For users or systems constrained to the HD 8950M’s era—such as legacy MXM-module laptops—the HD 8950M remains a functional part with OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 13,772 and 12,979, respectively, placing it at the 54th percentile. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory and 88.00 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for older titles, and its 100 W TDP is manageable in a portable chassis. The HD 8950M’s average score of 13,376 actually exceeds the RX 5500M’s average of 13,356, so in pure aggregate terms, it is not obsolete by this metric.

However, for any application leveraging modern APIs or compute workloads, the RX 5500M is the unequivocal choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,725 is 2.8 times the HD 8950M’s, and its Vulkan score of 35,693 is 2.75 times higher. The RX 5500M offers 4 GB of GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, enabling higher resolutions and texture detail. Its FP32 performance of 4.632 TFLOPS and FP16 support at 9.265 TFLOPS make it suitable for compute tasks beyond gaming. The 7 nm process, lower 85 W TDP, and PCIe 4.0 interface future-proof it far better than the 28 nm HD 8950M.

The verdict from the benchmark data is straightforward: the RX 5500M wins every head-to-head test, offering 2.8x the raw throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan. The HD 8950M’s only “win” is a 0.2% higher average score, which is an artifact of its limited two-test suite versus the RX 5500M’s ten-test suite. For anyone choosing between these two, the RX 5500M is the superior part in every meaningful performance metric. The HD 8950M should only be considered if hardware compatibility with MXM slots or legacy systems is a hard requirement, as its performance ceiling is less than half of the RX 5500M in the benchmark database. The percentile tie at 54 is a statistical quirk, not a reflection of real-world capability; the head-to-head deltas of -64.4% and -63.6% are the definitive truth.