Radeon RX 7900M vs E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 and Radeon RX 7900M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
7900M outperforms E8950 by a whopping 310% 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 | 419 | 62 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.55 | 22.82 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 19 October 2023 (2 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 | 2048 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2090 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 601.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 38.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 192 |
| TMUs | 128 | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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 | 35−40
−326%
| 149
+326%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−350%
| 108
+350%
|
| 4K | 18−20
−317%
| 75
+317%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 168
+0%
|
168
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how Radeon E8950 and RX 7900M compete in popular games:
- RX 7900M is 326% faster in 1080p
- RX 7900M is 350% faster in 1440p
- RX 7900M is 317% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.99 | 53.27 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 19 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 180 Watt |
Radeon E8950 has 89.5% lower power consumption.
RX 7900M, on the other hand, has a 310.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7900M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E8950 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.
