GeForce GTX 960M vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 with GeForce GTX 960M, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
33.53
+283%

Pro Vega 64 outperforms GTX 960M by a whopping 283% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking159492
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.198.01
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameVega 10GM107
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date27 June 2017 (7 years ago)13 March 2015 (9 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 cores4096640
Core clock speed1250 MHz1096 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1176 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate345.647.04
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS1.505 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs25640

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)
Length267 mmno data
WidthIGPno data
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 amount16 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo 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 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. 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 64 33.53
+283%
GTX 960M 8.76

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 64 12920
+283%
GTX 960M 3375

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 64 71257
+551%
GTX 960M 10951

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 64 73720
+767%
GTX 960M 8498

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:

900p350−400
+268%
95
−268%
Full HD130−140
+282%
34
−282%
1440p55−60
+267%
15
−267%
4K50−55
+257%
14
−257%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+0%
25
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+0%
84
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 31
+0%
31
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 48
+0%
48
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+0%
31
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+0%
71
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 26
+0%
26
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
+0%
11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+0%
25
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+0%
8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7
+0%
7
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 8
+0%
8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4
+0%
4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 64 and GTX 960M compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 64 is 268% faster in 900p
  • Pro Vega 64 is 282% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 64 is 267% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 64 is 257% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.53 8.76
Recency 27 June 2017 13 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 282.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 960M, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook one.


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

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 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.3 19 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 1058 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.