Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs GeForce GTX 980M SLI

Place in the ranking	222	140
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.50	9.82
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	no data	Vega 10
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 October 2014 (10 years ago)	19 March 2019 (5 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 cores	3072	4096
Core clock speed	1038 MHz	1250 MHz
Boost clock speed	1127 MHz	1468 MHz
Number of transistors	2x 5200 Million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	375.8
Floating-point processing power	no data	12.03 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	64
TMUs	no data	256

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	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
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	GDDR5	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	2x 8 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	512.0 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

no data

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.4
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.1.125
CUDA	+	-

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	135 −40.7%	190−200 +40.7%
Full HD	110 −36.4%	150−160 +36.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

−37.5%

55−60
+37.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 −38.9%	75−80 +38.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Battlefield 5	80−85 −35.8%	110−120 +35.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 −40%	70−75 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −37.5%	55−60 +37.5%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −40.4%	80−85 +40.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 −38.5%	90−95 +38.5%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −37.9%	200−210 +37.9%
Hitman 3	50−55 −40%	70−75 +40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 −40.4%	160−170 +40.4%
Metro Exodus	85−90 −41.2%	120−130 +41.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 −40.6%	90−95 +40.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 −42.9%	120−130 +42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 −35.9%	140−150 +35.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 −38.9%	75−80 +38.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Battlefield 5	80−85 −35.8%	110−120 +35.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 −40%	70−75 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −37.5%	55−60 +37.5%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −40.4%	80−85 +40.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 −38.5%	90−95 +38.5%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −37.9%	200−210 +37.9%
Hitman 3	50−55 −40%	70−75 +40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 −40.4%	160−170 +40.4%
Metro Exodus	85−90 −41.2%	120−130 +41.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 −40.6%	90−95 +40.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 −42.9%	120−130 +42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −38.9%	75−80 +38.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 −35.9%	140−150 +35.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 −38.9%	75−80 +38.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 −40%	70−75 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −37.5%	55−60 +37.5%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −40.4%	80−85 +40.4%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −37.9%	200−210 +37.9%
Hitman 3	50−55 −40%	70−75 +40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 −40.4%	160−170 +40.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 −42.9%	120−130 +42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −38.9%	75−80 +38.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 −35.9%	140−150 +35.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

60−65

−40.6%

90−95
+40.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −31.6%	50−55 +31.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 −34.6%	35−40 +34.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −37.9%	40−45 +37.9%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −40.8%	200−210 +40.8%
Hitman 3	30−33 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −37.3%	70−75 +37.3%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −38.9%	75−80 +38.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 −42.9%	200−210 +42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

−34.1%

55−60
+34.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Hitman 3	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 −41.7%	180−190 +41.7%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −29.6%	35−40 +29.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −38.5%	18−20 +38.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −32.4%	45−50 +32.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−42.9%

30−33
+42.9%

This is how GTX 980M SLI and Pro Vega 64X compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64X is 41% faster in 900p
Pro Vega 64X is 36% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.58	35.53
Recency	7 October 2014	19 March 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	250 Watt

GTX 980M SLI has 25% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 44.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 64X 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.