GeForce GTX 960M vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

Place in the ranking	162	496
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	9.25	8.05
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GM107
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	27 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 cores	4096	640
Core clock speed	1250 MHz	1096 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	1176 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	345.6	47.04
Floating-point processing power	11.06 TFLOPS	1.505 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	256	40

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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	IGP	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	80 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 outputs	No outputs
VGA аnalog display support	no data	+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no 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 Boost	no data	2.0
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.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.1.126
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 32.08
+283%

GTX 960M 8.37

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 3369

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 71252
+549%

GTX 960M 10976

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Pro Vega 64 73720
+790%

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:

900p	350−400 +268%	95 −268%
Full HD	130−140 +271%	35 −271%
1440p	55−60 +267%	15 −267%
4K	50−55 +257%	14 −257%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	23 +0%	23 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	25 +0%	25 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	36 +0%	36 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	31 +0%	31 +0%
Metro Exodus	17 +0%	17 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	99 +0%	99 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	28 +0%	28 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +0%	20 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20 +0%	20 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	15 +0%	15 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	20 +0%	20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	20 +0%	20 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24 +0%	24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6 +0%	6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +0%	8−9 +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 271% 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 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.08	8.37
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 283.3% 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.