GeForce GTX 950 Low Power vs Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019)
GPU code nameVega 10GM206
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 October 2017 (6 years ago)1 March 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$159

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 cores4096768
Core clock speed1156 MHz1026 MHz
Boost clock speed1247 MHz1190 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate319.257.12
Floating-point processing powerno data1.828 gflops

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm202 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 GB2 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1600 MHz6612 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s105.8 GB/s

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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12.012 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-5.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 October 2017 1 March 2016
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

RX Vega 64 Nano has an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 950 Low Power, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano and GeForce GTX 950 Low Power. We've got no test results to judge.


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 RX Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Low Power
GeForce GTX 950 Low Power

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.


4.8 4 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 950 Low Power 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.