GeForce GTX 965M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 965M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
8.67

GTX 965M outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking491456
Place by popularity28not in top-100
Power efficiency41.3613.71
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameVegaGM206S
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2020 (5 years ago)2016 (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 cores5121024
Core clock speedno data944 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistorsno data2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattunknown
Texture fill rateno data73.60
Floating-point processing powerno data2.355 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data64

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 datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
Interfaceno dataMXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data80 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 dataPortable Device Dependent
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI-+
G-SYNC support-+

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_112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-1.3
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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 8.67
GTX 965M 9.58
+10.5%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 5891
GTX 965M 7322
+24.3%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 22428
GTX 965M 23562
+5.1%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 3743
GTX 965M 5536
+47.9%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 27084
GTX 965M 34748
+28.3%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 299071
+15.1%
GTX 965M 259766

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 1163
GTX 965M 1810
+55.6%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 37
GTX 965M 40
+9.6%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 63
+109%
GTX 965M 30

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 21
+518%
GTX 965M 3

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 42
+72.7%
GTX 965M 24

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 36
+85.6%
GTX 965M 20

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 15
GTX 965M 16
+4.7%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 17
GTX 965M 26
+50%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 1
GTX 965M 1

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 HD23
−95.7%
45
+95.7%
1440p17
−52.9%
26
+52.9%
4K9
−144%
22
+144%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−24.1%
36
+24.1%
Counter-Strike 2 9
−111%
18−20
+111%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
−33.3%
20−22
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 32
−25%
40−45
+25%
Forza Horizon 5 21
−19%
24−27
+19%
Metro Exodus 27
−40.7%
38
+40.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
−36.4%
45
+36.4%
Valorant 44
+15.8%
35−40
−15.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−37.9%
40
+37.9%
Counter-Strike 2 9
−111%
18−20
+111%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%
Dota 2 29
+3.6%
28
−3.6%
Far Cry 5 30
−36.7%
40−45
+36.7%
Fortnite 50−55
−11.3%
59
+11.3%
Forza Horizon 4 27
−48.1%
40−45
+48.1%
Forza Horizon 5 13
−92.3%
24−27
+92.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
−89.5%
35−40
+89.5%
Metro Exodus 19
−21.1%
23
+21.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 57
+39%
41
−39%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12
−117%
24−27
+117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−22.2%
33
+22.2%
Valorant 14
−171%
35−40
+171%
World of Tanks 48
−200%
140−150
+200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+52.6%
19
−52.6%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
−122%
20−22
+122%
Dota 2 48
−60.4%
77
+60.4%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−28.9%
49
+28.9%
Forza Horizon 4 23
−73.9%
40−45
+73.9%
Forza Horizon 5 14
−78.6%
24−27
+78.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+209%
23
−209%
Valorant 37
−2.7%
35−40
+2.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22
−114%
45−50
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
World of Tanks 21
−238%
70−75
+238%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−11.8%
18−20
+11.8%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
−300%
8−9
+300%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−15.8%
21−24
+15.8%
Forza Horizon 4 16
−37.5%
21−24
+37.5%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
Metro Exodus 17
−11.8%
18−20
+11.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Valorant 39
+56%
24−27
−56%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Dota 2 10
−100%
20−22
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−100%
20−22
+100%
Metro Exodus 6
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13
−123%
27−30
+123%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
−100%
20−22
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18
−144%
44
+144%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Fortnite 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 9
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Valorant 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTX 965M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 965M is 96% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 965M is 53% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 965M is 144% 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 RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 209% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 965M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 7 tests (11%)
  • GTX 965M is ahead in 55 tests (86%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.67 9.58
Chip lithography 7 nm 28 nm

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 300% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 965M, on the other hand, has a 10.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 965M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.


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 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GeForce GTX 965M

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.


3.8 1289 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 111 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 965M 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.