Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) vs GeForce GTX 950A
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 950A and Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
950A outperforms 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by an impressive 50% 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 | 620 | 719 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Power efficiency | 6.36 | 21.25 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (8 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 993 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 | 57.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.439 TFLOPS | 1.843 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1001 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 24−27
+33.3%
| 18
−33.3%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+40%
| 10
−40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTX 950A and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) compete in popular games:
- GTX 950A is 33% faster in 1080p
- GTX 950A is 40% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.21 | 4.15 |
| Recency | 13 March 2015 | 26 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX 950A has a 49.6% higher aggregate performance score.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 950A is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
