GeForce 7950 GT vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce 7950 GT, including specs and performance data.
8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms 7950 GT by a whopping 899% 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 | 545 | 1191 |
| Place by popularity | 28 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 42.45 | 0.98 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 6 August 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $114.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 512 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.20 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 44.8 GB/s |
| 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 | no data | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 22
+1000%
| 2−3
−1000%
|
| 1440p | 16
+1500%
| 1−2
−1500%
|
| 4K | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 57.48 |
| 1440p | no data | 114.95 |
| 4K | no data | 114.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Fortnite | 47
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 51
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 28
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 37
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+933%
|
9−10
−933%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and 7950 GT compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1000% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1500% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 900% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.29 | 0.83 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 6 August 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 898.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7950 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 7950 GT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
