Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce Go 7950 GTX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 7950 GTX and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms Go 7950 GTX by a whopping 987% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1189 | 543 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 11.40 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2006 (18 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 32 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 575 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.80 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 28 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-III | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 44.8 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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 | 2−3
−1100%
| 24
+1100%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1150%
| 25
+1150%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1700%
| 18
+1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
75−80
+159%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−205%
|
58
+205%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−983%
|
130−140
+983%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−775%
|
35
+775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 13 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−188%
|
23
+188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−152%
|
73
+152%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−983%
|
130−140
+983%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27
+575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+16%
|
25
−16%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−525%
|
25
+525%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Go 7950 GTX and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 1100% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 1150% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Go 7950 GTX is 16% faster.
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 2600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Go 7950 GTX is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 32 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 7.39 |
| Recency | 12 October 2006 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 7 nm |
Vega 7 has a 986.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7950 GTX 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.
