OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon HD 7970 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£440VRAM:3 GBMemory bus width:384 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

AMD Radeon HD 7970 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 34 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon HD 7970
6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 84% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

44%

2.2

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

7.0

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 93%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

9.3

Popularity

Grades by review (34)
20 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 14 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 60%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-hd-7970
  • amd-radeon-hd-7970
amd-radeon-hd-7970
amd-radeon-hd-7970
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon HD 7970

Based on 19 · 18

Reviewers mostly praise its strong performance and overclocking headroom, but agree it draws a lot of power and runs loud.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon HD 7970

Based on 271 owners sharing their experience in online comments

74%positive9%mixed17%negative

Owners mostly praise its strong, lasting performance and overclocking, while aging speed, limited VRAM, heat, and power use frustrate some.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say it struggles in newer demanding games, dropping to around 30–40 fps unless settings are lowered.17
  • Owners report reference cards running around 80–90°C under load and getting loud, and some needing new thermal paste or pads.9
  • Owners report crashes, blue screens and driver problems in some games, and Vulkan not working in some titles.7
  • Owners say it draws a lot of power under load, so running costs add up over time.6
  • Owners say its 3 GB of VRAM now limits newer games, and the 6 GB version would have aged better.5
  • Owners report uneven frame pacing, stutter and random frame drops in some games, even when average fps looks fine.5
  • Owners say overclocking results vary a lot between cards, with some reaching only about 1030 MHz core.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon HD 7970

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

44%

2.2

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

7.0

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

4.0
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,430 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,430 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 94.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
5,088 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,088 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 93.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,143 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,143 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 94.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.79 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
3 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 3 GB of VRAM, which is less than 93.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
384 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 384 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 89.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
264 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 264 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 79.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,500 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,500 MHz, which is slower than that of 95.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
6
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 6 displays, which is more than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x3112
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x3112, which is lower than that of 92.2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
21.6 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 21.6 Gbps, which is faster than on 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
250 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 250 W under peak load, which is higher than 57.6% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
250 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 250 W, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
275x 110x 38 mm
Length
275 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 275 mm long, which is shorter than 55.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
994 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 994 g, which is lighter than 55.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon HD 7970 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (34)
    20 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 14 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (34)
    20 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 14 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 91.7% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (1 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    1 W vs 12 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 63.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (925 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    925 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 9 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (3 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    3 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 51.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (925 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    925 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 7.6% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon HD 7970 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.89 vs 7.4).
    6.89 vs 7.41
  • 63.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (925 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    925 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 51.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (925 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    925 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 81.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (29.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    29.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 68.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (118.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    118.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 83.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.79 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 8 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    32 vs 40
  • 12 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2011 vs 2023).
    December 2011
    2011 vs 2023
  • 77.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5,088 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    5,088 points vs 22,638 points
  • 83.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,430 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,430 points vs 14,779 points
  • 82.2% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,143 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,143 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 2,304 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2048 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,048 vs 4,352
  • 9 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (3 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    3 GB vs 12 GB
  • 71.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 41.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (264 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    264 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 21.4% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,375 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,375 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 81.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,313 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,313 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 2.3).
    1.2 vs 2.3
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x3112 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x3112 vs 7680x4320
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 W
  • 10.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (46 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    46 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 33 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (33 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    33 dB vs 0 dB
  • 11 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (78 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    78 °C vs 67 °C
  • 8 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (45 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    45 °C vs 37 °C
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • 13.6% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (250 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    250 W vs 220 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
22/07/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks and 2025 game performance
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is still a cheap option in 2025, but the newest games need 720p and some titles crash.
9.0
Dragon Systems
≈ estimated
17/02/2025
Retrospective review · game benchmarks in old and new titles
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is still playable in many titles, which explains why it is considered a legend.
7.0
Tech Nuovo
≈ estimated
08/07/2024
Hands-on review · game benchmarks in 2024
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is fine for e-sports and older games, but it lacks newer game support and long-term driver support.
4.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
12/03/2023
Game benchmark test · 15 titles on a 2023 setup
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is old and power hungry; the reviewer would not buy it and advises upgrading to something newer and more efficient.
4.0
The Gaming Assassin
≈ estimated
13/01/2023
Hands-on review · game performance tests at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 handles older games well, but the RX 560 delivers similar performance for far less power.
8.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
29/12/2022
Hands-on review · 20 game performance tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 still holds up well in older and esports games, but driver support and 3 GB of VRAM are limits.
5.0
Game Tech Reviews
≈ estimated
23/05/2022
Deep dive · 1080p game tests and upgrade verdict
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is still fine for 1080p, but dropped support and limited DirectX 12 make an upgrade advisable.
5.0
Nexus Tech
≈ estimated
14/02/2022
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and price check
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 performs very well for its era, but it is hard to justify at the asking price.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
05/06/2020
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is an interesting card that delivers decent gaming results, if you can find it cheap.
4.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
18/12/2017
Hands-on review · two-card Crossfire tests in 10 games
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 in Crossfire is not worth the trouble; a single modern card is the better choice.
9.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
30/06/2017
Hands-on review · game tests and 2017 value verdict
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 is a nostalgic card that still performs well for the price, though it runs hot.
9.0
Geekanoids
≈ estimated
04/02/2012
Benchmark test · Unigine Heaven DX11 at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 7970 posts a high average frame rate at 1080p in Unigine Heaven DX11.
More graded video reviews (2)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
21/12/2011
Product overview · Architecture and positioning
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is the first 28nm card with DirectX 11.1 and sits between the HD 6970 and dual-GPU HD 6990, closer to the latter.
9.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
21/12/2011
Launch review · Gaming benchmarks
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is a fast card for full HD gaming, 20 to 40% quicker than the GTX 580 in newer games, but its fan gets loud.
8.5
impulsegamer.com
✓ explicit
22/12/2011
Hardware review · Game and benchmark tests
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 doubles the HD 6870 in 3DMark 11 at Full HD and runs DiRT 2 at 91 fps, though its fan whirls up in heavy gaming.
8.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
27/12/2011
Architecture preview · Graphics Core Next
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is AMD's first 28nm flagship, built on the new GCN design for both gaming and computing workloads.
9.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
22/12/2011
Launch review · Single-GPU performance
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is the fastest single-GPU card at launch, well suited to Eyefinity multi-monitor setups but held back by early driver problems.
8.0
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
08/01/2012
Dual-card test · CrossFire setup
Verdict
The ASUS Radeon HD 7970 looks sharper than AMD's reference design and suits builders planning a two-card CrossFire setup.
9.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
22/06/2012
Lab test · Power and gaming
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition is the fastest single-GPU card for games, but it draws more power and runs louder than the GTX 680.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
22/06/2012
Benchmark review · Single-GPU refresh
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition is a faster refresh that takes back the top single-GPU spot, mainly helping at high resolutions, though it is not a new GPU.
overclockers.com
23/12/2011
Not graded yet
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
22/12/2011
Launch review · Flagship single-GPU
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is AMD's new single-GPU flagship, meant to beat the HD 6970 and GTX 580 with a new architecture and 3GB of memory.
7.9
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
22/12/2011
Benchmark test · Single-chip flagship
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is the fastest single-chip card in our tests and clearly beats the GTX 580, but its fan is loud under load.
8.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
05/12/2021
Overclocking test · Card sample check
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is a strong overclocker, gaining 200 to 300 MHz with no voltage increase, though chip quality varies widely between cards.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
10/01/2012
Lab test · Power and noise
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is about 37% faster than the HD 6970 and sits just behind the GTX 680, with low idle power draw but loud fans in games.
7.2
01net.com
✓ explicit
13/01/2012
Performance review · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 beats the GTX 580 by about 17.5% on average and drops to 2 W when the screen sleeps, but its fan is too loud.
7.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
22/12/2011
Lab test · Multi-monitor gaming
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 is the first single card that runs Battlefield 3 well on three 1080p screens, though it is still too slow for three-screen Crysis 2.
9.0
hardzone.es
≈ estimated
29/06/2012
Driver comparison · Nine Catalyst versions
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 gained 29.74% in speed from driver updates between December 2011 and June 2012, though power use barely changed.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
25/06/2012
Benchmark review · Faster clock edition
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 1GHz Edition is a higher-clocked refresh that can match the GTX 680 in speed, but draws more power and runs louder.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
22/12/2011
Full review · Architecture and connectivity
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7970 brings a 28nm Tahiti GPU, 3GB of memory and up to six monitors per card, suiting multi-screen builds and video work.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
22/06/2012
Lab test · Power and overclock
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition overclocks to a stable 1200 MHz core, but it draws 31 W more under full load than the standard card.
9.0
rehwolution.it
✓ explicit
05/11/2013
Benchmark review · Dual-card CrossFire
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 DualX OC with Boost runs a 950 MHz core out of the box and reaches 1,000 MHz with its faster BIOS switch.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon HD 7970

  • Groundbreaking single-GPU performance at launch, outperforming the Nvidia GTX 580
  • Excellent longevity (often called 'Fine Wine') due to the GCN architecture and 3GB VRAM
  • Strong overclocking potential, with many users reaching significant performance gains
  • High compute performance, making it useful for non-gaming tasks like crypto mining
  • Innovative ZeroCore Power technology reduces idle energy consumption to almost zero
  • Scales effectively in CrossFireX configurations for multi-GPU setups

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon HD 7970

  • Reference cooler is notoriously loud under load, often compared to a vacuum cleaner
  • High power consumption and heat generation when gaming or overclocked
  • Expensive launch price, which some users found difficult to justify over mid-range options
  • Reference design lacked a backplate, which some enthusiasts found disappointing for a flagship
  • Bulky dual-slot design can block adjacent expansion slots on smaller motherboards
  • Drivers were initially unoptimized, though this improved significantly over time

Verdict

The AMD Radeon HD 7970, launched in early 2012, was the world’s first graphics card based on the 28nm process and the GCN (Graphics Core Next) architecture, featuring 2,048 stream processors, a 925 MHz core clock, and 3GB of GDDR5 VRAM on a wide 384-bit memory interface. Its main pros included industry-leading compute performance for its time, excellent scaling in CrossFire configurations, and innovative energy-saving features like AMD ZeroCore Power. However, it faced some cons, such as a high 250W TDP requiring both 6-pin and 8-pin power connectors, a reference cooler that was often criticized for being loud under heavy load, and a relatively high launch price.

Compare AMD Radeon HD 7970 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon HD 7970 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found