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

Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£370VRAM:3 GBMemory bus width:384 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):200 W

Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 22 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire Radeon HD 7950
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 87% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

Technical score

25%

8.6

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 87% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 82%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 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 92% of models
Score components

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

6.4

Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 92%
8.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.6/ 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
★ Better than 96% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

9.1

Popularity

Grades by review (22)
8 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 3 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.
★Better than 96%
?

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
  • sapphire-radeon-hd-7950
sapphire-radeon-hd-7950
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 Sapphire Radeon HD 7950

Based on 8 · 14

Reviewers praise its value, stability and cooling, but split on gaming performance and overclocking, and many dislike the drivers.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Sapphire Radeon HD 7950

Based on 206 owners sharing their experience in online comments

71%positive13%mixed16%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and overclocking headroom, while heat, aging drivers, and failures are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Low frame rates or poor performance in games22
  • Some cards stop showing any image or die, with black screens or fans spinning but no display output, sometimes after years of use.10
  • Runs hot under load: some owners report temperatures near 100 C in mining or with the case closed, with fans ramping up loudly.9
  • AMD ended driver support for it, and newer Adrenalin drivers have caused problems or BIOS damage for some owners.7
  • Overclocking is limited: some cards crash or need power limit changes at higher clocks, and many become unstable above about 1000 MHz.6
  • Crashes, freezes and visual artifacts occur for some owners, especially in newer games or with high overclocks.5
  • Frame drops and stutter appear in demanding games, and some owners see uneven smoothness despite decent average fps.5
  • Power draw is high: owners say it needs a 600 to 700 watt power supply and it raises electricity bills.5
  • Costs more than some owners expected3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 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 92% of models
Score components:

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

6.4

Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

4.2
Reviews score
8.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2013 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2013 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 95.4% 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
28,550 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 28,550 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 66.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,050 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,050 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 90% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.87 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 91.8% 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
240 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 240 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 82.9% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% 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
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% 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
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% 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
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
200 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 200 W, which is lower than that of 50.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
200 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 200 W under peak load, which is lower than 53.4% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% 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
200 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 200 W, which is lower than that of 55.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
200 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
275x 115x 42 mm
Length
279 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 279 mm long, which is shorter than 53.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Height
110 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 110 mm tall, which is shorter than 88.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.1% 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
680 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 680 g, which is lighter than 79.7% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 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
  • 2.86x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (5,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    5,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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
    ★ Better than 96% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (22)
    8 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 3 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.
    8.6 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 15 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (110 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    110 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
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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
    ★ Better than 96% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (22)
    8 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 3 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.
    8.6 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
  • 26.1% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (28,550 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    28,550 points vs 22,638 points
  • 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
  • 2.86x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (5,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    5,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, 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
  • 15 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (110 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    110 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
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 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.
  • 76.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (89.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    89.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 46.2% lower sentiment score
    4.2 vs 7.8
  • 8.3% worse value for money
    Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.85 vs 7.4).
    6.85 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
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 76.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (89.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    89.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 84.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (25.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    25.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 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
  • 87.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.87 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 11 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2012 vs 2023).
    January 2012
    2012 vs 2023
  • 86.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2013 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,013 points vs 14,779 points
  • 74.7% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,050 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,050 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 88.3% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (3.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    3.46 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 2,560 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,792 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,792 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
  • 73.7% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 46.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (240 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    240 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • 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.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • 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 Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • 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 OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 81.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,310 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,310 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 (1.1 vs 2.3).
    1.1 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 38 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (38 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    38 dB vs 0 dB
  • 5.9 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (41.3 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    41.3 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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
  • 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

7.0
Adrian's Tech Base
≈ estimated
31/01/2026
Retro test · game, benchmark and emulation tests
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is a decent budget pick only at low prices, since better buys exist above that range.
9.5
SPNG
≈ estimated
18/08/2022
Retrospective review · benchmarks in 7 games and overclock tests
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is a great card that still holds up well today, and its long-running reputation is well earned.
9.0
Twisted Skinz Tech
≈ estimated
08/03/2017
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and overclock test
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is still a very good 1080p card at high settings and worth a look for a budget build.
9.5
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
02/03/2012
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power and cooling tests
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 offers strong performance, low power draw and a quiet cooler, making it good value.
8.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
01/02/2012
Hands-on review · Eyefinity benchmark results
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 performs well in tested games at 5760x1080; the full verdict is deferred to the written review.
9.5
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
31/01/2012
Full review · cooling, noise, overclocking and benchmarks
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is quiet, cool and a strong overclocker, and the reviewer's favourite 7950 tested so far.
7.0
CmdrSoyo
≈ estimated
23/01/2025
First impressions · VRM and PCB inspection · early testing
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 has a better board at a bargain price, but the four-lane fault and heatsink fit still need fixing.
7.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
05/07/2017
Comparison · gaming benchmarks against RX 560
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 performs about the same as the RX 560 in modern games, a good cheap pick for budget builds.
9.0
Jonathan Morrison
≈ estimated
06/04/2013
Hands-on review · installation and benchmarks in a Mac Pro
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is one of the best upgrades for older Mac Pros, alongside a PCIe SSD.
8.0
Jack Talks Tech
≈ estimated
02/02/2013
Unboxing and first look · power-on and noise check
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is a very good bargain at its reduced price, with striking looks and quiet operation.
9.0
Motherboards.org
≈ estimated
11/07/2012
Hands-on review · cooling, noise and dual BIOS features
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 offers quiet cooling and a dual BIOS that tinkerers will value, though overclocking means louder fans.
8.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
31/01/2012
Short review · benchmark comparison against GTX 580
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is a solid AMD card with better features and performance than the GTX 580, at a lower price.
More graded video reviews (1)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
17/07/2012
Comparison table · Multi-monitor card
Verdict
The Sapphire HD 7950 Flex is a 3 GB Radeon with a higher core clock that drives three DVI or HDMI monitors without an active adapter, suiting EyeFinity setups.
nitroware.net
27/05/2012
Not graded yet
8.8
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
02/02/2012
Lab test · Quiet overclocked card
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 OC is a quiet, fast card for 1080p, with two 80mm fans and a 100 MHz overclock that nearly matches the HD 7970.
7.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
04/07/2018
Hands-on test · Reference card
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7950 is a quiet, low-power card that runs 5 to 15 percent behind the HD 7970 and ahead of the GTX 570.
9.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
31/01/2012
Lab test · Noise and overclocking
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7950 runs quiet and cool, draws about 120 to 130 watts in games, and overclocks to a stable 1,000 MHz core.
9.6
macwelt.de
✓ explicit
27/06/2013
Hands-on test · Mac Pro upgrade
Verdict
The Sapphire HD 7950 Mac Edition turns a 2010 or newer Mac Pro into a strong gaming machine, but does little for everyday work or Cinema 4D.
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
31/01/2012
Lab test · Reference vs custom
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7950 has the HD 7970's core design with 28 of 32 compute units and lower clocks, so it runs slower than the flagship.
9.0
muycomputer.com
✓ explicit
01/02/2012
Hands-on review · Reference card
Verdict
The Radeon HD 7950 is a quiet, cool reference card that handles demanding games at 1,920 x 1,200, though only AMD's own sample was tested.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
20/02/2012
Hands-on test · Dual-card CrossFire
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 OC is a two-fan, factory-overclocked card that gains the most at high resolutions, especially in CrossFireX pairs.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Radeon HD 7950

  • Excellent overclocking headroom, often reaching performance levels of the more expensive HD 7970
  • Sapphire's Dual-X and Vapor-X cooling solutions are remarkably quiet, even under heavy load
  • Great performance-to-price value, comfortably outperforming the Nvidia GTX 580 in many tests
  • Large 3GB VRAM buffer provided better future-proofing for high-resolution textures
  • Generous accessory bundle often includes various display adapters and high-quality power cables
  • Features a dual BIOS switch, which is a significant safety net for enthusiasts and overclockers

What customers don't like about Sapphire Radeon HD 7950

  • The heavy non-reference cooler can cause the PCB to sag or warp over time without additional support
  • Can be power-hungry under heavy load, requiring two 6-pin power connectors
  • Large physical dimensions may not fit easily into smaller or cramped PC cases
  • Lack of bundled games at launch despite its enthusiast-level price point
  • Early driver support was reported as unfinished, lacking some key features at launch
  • Open-air cooler design exhausts heat into the case rather than out the back, necessitating good case airflow

Verdict

The Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 is a high-performance graphics card built on a 28nm process and based on the Tahiti PRO architecture. Key specifications include 1,792 stream processors, 3GB of GDDR5 memory on a wide 384-bit interface, and a core clock typically factory-overclocked to 900 MHz (compared to the 800 MHz reference). Its primary characteristics include the Dual-X cooling system with twin 92mm fans and five heat pipes, support for PCI Express 3.0, and a dual BIOS feature. Main pros include its exceptional overclocking headroom, quiet and efficient thermal performance, and a competitive price-to-performance ratio against flagship cards of its era. Cons include its large physical dimensions that may conflict with smaller cases or cables and limited feature support for newer DirectX 12 titles despite basic compatibility.

Compare Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 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 Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found