GeForce GTX 960M vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with GeForce GTX 960M, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
31.39
+267%

Pro Vega 56 outperforms GTX 960M by a whopping 267% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking179500
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation46.08no data
Power efficiency10.508.01
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameVega 10GM107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 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 cores3584640
Core clock speed1138 MHz1096 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz1176 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate280.047.04
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS1.505 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs22440

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s80 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno 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 Boostno data2.0
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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.1.126
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.

Pro Vega 56 31.39
+267%
GTX 960M 8.56

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 3367

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
+462%
GTX 960M 10993

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

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:

900p300−350
+216%
95
−216%
Full HD96
+174%
35
−174%
1440p55−60
+267%
15
−267%
4K57
+307%
14
−307%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16no data
1440p7.25no data
4K7.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
+330%
20−22
−330%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+294%
16−18
−294%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+294%
16−18
−294%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
+330%
20−22
−330%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+195%
38
−195%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+294%
16−18
−294%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+294%
16−18
−294%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+250%
28
−250%
Fortnite 130−140
+39.4%
99
−39.4%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+234%
35
−234%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+314%
21−24
−314%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+240%
35
−240%
Valorant 190−200
+129%
80−85
−129%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
+330%
20−22
−330%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+261%
31
−261%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+294%
16−18
−294%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+114%
120−130
−114%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+294%
16−18
−294%
Dota 2 107
+72.6%
60−65
−72.6%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+292%
25
−292%
Fortnite 130−140
+245%
40
−245%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+277%
31
−277%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+314%
21−24
−314%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+239%
31
−239%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+467%
12
−467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+310%
29
−310%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+383%
24
−383%
Valorant 190−200
+129%
80−85
−129%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+331%
26
−331%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+294%
16−18
−294%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+294%
16−18
−294%
Dota 2 102
+64.5%
60−65
−64.5%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+326%
23
−326%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+368%
25
−368%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+314%
21−24
−314%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+561%
18
−561%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+357%
14
−357%
Valorant 190−200
+129%
80−85
−129%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+345%
31
−345%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+229%
60−65
−229%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+418%
10−12
−418%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+307%
40−45
−307%
Valorant 220−230
+145%
90−95
−145%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+376%
17
−376%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+357%
7−8
−357%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+367%
15
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+344%
18
−344%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+279%
14−16
−279%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+300%
12−14
−300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+317%
18
−317%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+195%
20
−195%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+320%
10
−320%
Valorant 180−190
+329%
40−45
−329%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+1467%
3
−1467%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Dota 2 96
+220%
30−33
−220%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+414%
7
−414%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+315%
12−14
−315%
Forza Horizon 5 30−33
+400%
6−7
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+338%
8−9
−338%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+600%
5
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+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 174% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 267% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 307% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 1467% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 66 tests (99%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.39 8.56
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 266.7% 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M

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.


3.5 90 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 1101 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 56 or GeForce GTX 960M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.