GeForce 7950 GX2 vs GTX 1070
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1070 and GeForce 7950 GX2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1070 outperforms 7950 GX2 by a whopping 4967% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 192 | 1270 |
| Place by popularity | 35 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 20.95 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 16.74 | 0.45 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | G71 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 June 2016 (10 years ago) | 5 June 2006 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $379 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1070 has 209400% better value for money than 7950 GX2.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1920 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1683 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 202.0 | 12.00 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.463 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 ×2 |
| TMUs | 120 | 24 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 720 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 270 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 8 GB/s | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 117
+5750%
| 2−3
−5750%
|
| 1440p | 69
+6800%
| 1−2
−6800%
|
| 4K | 49 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.24
+9146%
| 299.50
−9146%
|
| 1440p | 5.49
+10805%
| 599.00
−10805%
|
| 4K | 7.73 | no data |
- GTX 1070 has 9146% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1070 has 10805% lower cost per frame in 1440p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+6033%
|
3−4
−6033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 141
+6950%
|
2−3
−6950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+6033%
|
3−4
−6033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+5200%
|
2−3
−5200%
|
| Fortnite | 256
+5020%
|
5−6
−5020%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 129
+6350%
|
2−3
−6350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 135
+6650%
|
2−3
−6650%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+5025%
|
4−5
−5025%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+9500%
|
1−2
−9500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 119
+5850%
|
2−3
−5850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+6033%
|
3−4
−6033%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+5440%
|
5−6
−5440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+6800%
|
2−3
−6800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
| Fortnite | 175
+5733%
|
3−4
−5733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+5950%
|
2−3
−5950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 111
+5450%
|
2−3
−5450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 122
+6000%
|
2−3
−6000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120
+5900%
|
2−3
−5900%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+5025%
|
4−5
−5025%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 107
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+6800%
|
2−3
−6800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90
+8900%
|
1−2
−8900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 81
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+5025%
|
4−5
−5025%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 127
+6250%
|
2−3
−6250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+7700%
|
1−2
−7700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+5650%
|
4−5
−5650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5733%
|
3−4
−5733%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+5825%
|
4−5
−5825%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 84
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 190−200
+6467%
|
3−4
−6467%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+9800%
|
1−2
−9800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 39 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 1070 and 7950 GX2 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1070 is 5750% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1070 is 6800% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.43 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 10 June 2016 | 5 June 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 110 Watt |
GTX 1070 has a 4967% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 463% more advanced lithography process.
7950 GX2, on the other hand, has 36% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7950 GX2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
