Radeon Pro 5600M vs GeForce GTX 980M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980M with Radeon Pro 5600M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980M
2014
8 GB GDDR5
17.65

Pro 5600M outperforms 980M by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking355291
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.7534.55
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 1 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Navi 12
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date7 October 2014 (12 years ago)15 June 2020 (6 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores15362560
Core clock speed1038 MHz822 MHz
Boost clock speed1127 MHz1144 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown50 Watt
Texture fill rate51.84183.0
Floating-point processing power1.659 TFLOPSno data
ROPs6464
TMUs96160
L1 Cache576 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MB4 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz770 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s394.2 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.0
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
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.

GTX 980M 17.65
Pro 5600M 22.18
+25.7%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 980M 7384
Samples: 2898
Pro 5600M 9279
+25.7%
Samples: 47

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:

900p173210−220
+21.4%
Full HD7290−95
+25%
1440p3645−50
+25%
4K2835−40
+25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 45−50 60−65
+31.9%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 120−130
+26.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 45−50
+28.9%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 45−50 60−65
+31.9%
Battlefield 5 82 90−95
+11%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 120−130
+26.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 45−50
+28.9%
Far Cry 5 58 70−75
+27.6%
Fortnite 178
+56.1%
110−120
Forza Horizon 4 74 90−95
+23%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85 85−90
+3.5%
Valorant 130−140 150−160
+16.9%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 45−50 60−65
+31.9%
Battlefield 5 68 90−95
+33.8%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 120−130
+26.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230 250−260
+8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 45−50
+28.9%
Dota 2 100−110 110−120
+13.3%
Far Cry 5 53 70−75
+39.6%
Far Cry 6 50−55 60−65
+28%
Fortnite 86 110−120
+32.6%
Forza Horizon 4 68 90−95
+33.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 60 80−85
+38.3%
Metro Exodus 31 50−55
+61.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 79 85−90
+11.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61 65−70
+8.2%
Valorant 130−140 150−160
+16.9%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 61 90−95
+49.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 45−50
+28.9%
Dota 2 100−110 110−120
+13.3%
Far Cry 5 50 70−75
+48%
Forza Horizon 4 47 90−95
+93.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 49 85−90
+79.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33 65−70
+100%
Valorant 130−140 150−160
+16.9%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 63 110−120
+81%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40 45−50
+33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140 160−170
+23.7%
Far Cry 6 27−30 35−40
+32.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33 40−45
+36.7%
Metro Exodus 19 30−33
+57.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 170−180
+4.2%
Valorant 150−160 180−190
+17.7%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45 60−65
+42.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 21−24
+29.4%
Far Cry 5 34 50−55
+52.9%
Forza Horizon 4 39 55−60
+48.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 35−40
+33.3%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 40 50−55
+35%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 14−16 18−20
+28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 21−24
+37.5%
Far Cry 6 9−10 12−14
+33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 41 40−45
+2.4%
Metro Exodus 12 18−20
+58.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22 30−35
+50%
Valorant 90−95 120−130
+33.3%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 23 35−40
+52.2%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 21−24
+37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 9−10
+28.6%
Dota 2 60−65 75−80
+20.6%
Far Cry 5 16 24−27
+62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 26 40−45
+53.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17 24−27
+41.2%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 19 24−27
+26.3%

This is how GTX 980M and Pro 5600M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5600M is 21% faster in 900p
  • Pro 5600M is 25% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5600M is 25% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5600M is 25% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980M is 56% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5600M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 980M performs better in 1 test (2%)
  • Pro 5600M performs better in 63 tests (98%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.65 22.18
Recency 7 October 2014 15 June 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm

Pro 5600M has a 26% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5600M is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 402 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 88 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 980M or Radeon Pro 5600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.