GeForce GTX 960M vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

Place in the ranking	179	499
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	45.70	no data
Power efficiency	10.56	8.06
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GM107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	13 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	3584	640
Core clock speed	1138 MHz	1096 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1176 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	47.04
Floating-point processing power	8.96 TFLOPS	1.505 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	224	40

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	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	80 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
VGA аnalog display support	no data	+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	-	+
GeForce ShadowPlay	-	+
GPU Boost	no data	2.0
GameWorks	-	+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	-	+
Optimus	-	+
BatteryBoost	-	+
Ansel	-	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.1.126
CUDA	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 56 31.03
+267%

GTX 960M 8.46

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.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+267%

GTX 960M 3368

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.

Pro Vega 56 25589
+385%

GTX 960M 5278

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.

Pro Vega 56 17797
+312%

GTX 960M 4318

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 56 61755
+463%

GTX 960M 10976

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Pro Vega 56 66124
+698%

GTX 960M 8285

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	300−350 +216%	95 −216%
Full HD	100 +194%	34 −194%
1440p	50−55 +257%	14 −257%
4K	61 +336%	14 −336%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.99	no data
1440p	7.98	no data
4K	6.54	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +250%	18−20 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +300%	23 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +250%	18−20 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +326%	35−40 −326%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +300%	21−24 −300%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +200%	27 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +175%	24−27 −175%
Valorant	120−130 +288%	30−35 −288%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +268%	25 −268%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +250%	18−20 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Dota 2	36 +71.4%	21 −71.4%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +138%	35−40 −138%
Fortnite	150−160 +317%	36 −317%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +326%	35−40 −326%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +300%	21−24 −300%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +239%	31 −239%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +376%	17 −376%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +84.8%	99 −84.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +175%	24−27 −175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +289%	28 −289%
Valorant	120−130 +288%	30−35 −288%
World of Tanks	270−280 +112%	130−140 −112%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +360%	20 −360%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +250%	18−20 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +272%	18−20 −272%
Dota 2	102 +229%	30−35 −229%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +138%	35−40 −138%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +326%	35−40 −326%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +300%	21−24 −300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +815%	20 −815%
Valorant	120−130 +288%	30−35 −288%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Dota 2	55−60 +418%	10−12 −418%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +418%	10−12 −418%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +317%	40−45 −317%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%
World of Tanks	200−210 +229%	60−65 −229%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +343%	14 −343%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +432%	18−20 −432%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +368%	18−20 −368%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +300%	12−14 −300%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +380%	15 −380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +333%	12−14 −333%
Valorant	90−95 +323%	21−24 −323%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Dota 2	55−60 +195%	20 −195%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +195%	20 −195%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +321%	24 −321%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +195%	20 −195%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +500%	6 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Dota 2	96 +405%	18−20 −405%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +350%	10−11 −350%
Fortnite	40−45 +378%	9−10 −378%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +364%	10−12 −364%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +383%	6−7 −383%
Valorant	45−50 +488%	8−9 −488%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and GTX 960M compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is 216% faster in 900p
Pro Vega 56 is 194% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 is 257% faster in 1440p
Pro Vega 56 is 336% faster in 4K

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 815% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 63 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.03	8.46
Recency	14 August 2017	13 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	75 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 266.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 960M, on the other hand, has 180% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 960M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.