Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 with Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, including specs and performance data.
M GL / 870 outperforms GTX 590 by an impressive 59% 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 | 572 | 441 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 15.21 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Vega Kaby Lake-G |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (15 years ago) | 7 January 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 ×2 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 931 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1011 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | no data |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | no data |
| 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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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:
| 900p | 47
−48.9%
| 70−75
+48.9%
|
| Full HD | 111
+158%
| 43
−158%
|
| 1200p | 112
−51.8%
| 170−180
+51.8%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−75%
| 28
+75%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−75%
| 14
+75%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30 | no data |
| 1440p | 43.69 | no data |
| 4K | 87.38 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−69%
|
70−75
+69%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−72.2%
|
62
+72.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−69%
|
70−75
+69%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−61.5%
|
42
+61.5%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−75.5%
|
86
+75.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−66.7%
|
40−45
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−62.1%
|
45−50
+62.1%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−35.8%
|
110−120
+35.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−44.4%
|
52
+44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−69%
|
70−75
+69%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−41.7%
|
180−190
+41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−41%
|
85−90
+41%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−50%
|
39
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−14.3%
|
56
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−66.7%
|
40−45
+66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−41.4%
|
41
+41.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−50%
|
24
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−62.1%
|
45−50
+62.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−95.2%
|
41
+95.2%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−35.8%
|
110−120
+35.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−33.3%
|
48
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−41%
|
85−90
+41%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−38.5%
|
36
+38.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−62.1%
|
45−50
+62.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−35.8%
|
110−120
+35.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+28.9%
|
38
−28.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−56.5%
|
95−100
+56.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−40.9%
|
62
+40.9%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−50.6%
|
120−130
+50.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−88.9%
|
34
+88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−50%
|
24
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−63.2%
|
30−35
+63.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24
+41.2%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−52.6%
|
29
+52.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−74.3%
|
60−65
+74.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16
+77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−56.7%
|
45−50
+56.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−69.2%
|
21−24
+69.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
This is how GTX 590 and RX Vega M GL / 870 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 49% faster in 900p
- GTX 590 is 158% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 52% faster in 1200p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 75% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 75% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the GTX 590 is 29% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GL / 870 is 350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 590 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- RX Vega M GL / 870 performs better in 59 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.02 | 12.78 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 7 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 65 Watt |
RX Vega M GL / 870 has a 59% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 462% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 590 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 590 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
