GeForce GTX 970 vs Radeon RX Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and GeForce GTX 970, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
34.26
+37%

RX Vega 56 outperforms GTX 970 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking151215
Place by popularitynot in top-10057
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.5013.79
Power efficiency11.1811.58
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameVega 10GM204
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)19 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 56 has 78% better value for money than GTX 970.

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 cores35841664
Core clock speed1156 MHz1050 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHz1178 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt148 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data98 °C
Texture fill rate329.5122.5
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPS3.92 TFLOPS
ROPs6456
TMUs224104

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)no data500 Watt
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin2x 6-pin
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 amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz7.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s224 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
HDMI++
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
G-SYNC support-+
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

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-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.4
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.

RX Vega 56 34.26
+37%
GTX 970 25.01

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.

RX Vega 56 13197
+37%
GTX 970 9635

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 56 29086
+81.4%
GTX 970 16033

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 56 54586
+29.2%
GTX 970 42263

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 56 20759
+73.7%
GTX 970 11954

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 56 125359
+72.2%
GTX 970 72819

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 56 412820
GTX 970 422295
+2.3%

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 HD114
+42.5%
80
−42.5%
1440p78
+73.3%
45
−73.3%
4K45
+18.4%
38
−18.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.504.11
1440p5.127.31
4K8.878.66

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+43.9%
40−45
−43.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 77
+40%
55−60
−40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+37.2%
40−45
−37.2%
Battlefield 5 164
+100%
80−85
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+37.3%
50−55
−37.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+43.9%
40−45
−43.9%
Far Cry 5 115
+102%
55−60
−102%
Far Cry New Dawn 114
+75.4%
65−70
−75.4%
Forza Horizon 4 293
+101%
140−150
−101%
Hitman 3 70−75
+44%
50−55
−44%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+28.7%
110−120
−28.7%
Metro Exodus 144
+67.4%
85−90
−67.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+27.7%
65−70
−27.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 184
+116%
85−90
−116%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+17.5%
100−110
−17.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 134
+144%
55−60
−144%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+37.2%
40−45
−37.2%
Battlefield 5 153
+86.6%
80−85
−86.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+34.6%
52
−34.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+43.9%
40−45
−43.9%
Far Cry 5 92
+61.4%
55−60
−61.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 88
+203%
29
−203%
Forza Horizon 4 272
+86.3%
140−150
−86.3%
Hitman 3 70−75
+44%
50−55
−44%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+28.7%
110−120
−28.7%
Metro Exodus 119
+240%
35
−240%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+27.7%
65−70
−27.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+43.5%
85−90
−43.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
−51.4%
109
+51.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+17.5%
100−110
−17.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 52
−5.8%
55−60
+5.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+37.2%
40−45
−37.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+94.4%
36
−94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+43.9%
40−45
−43.9%
Far Cry 5 69
+21.1%
55−60
−21.1%
Forza Horizon 4 109
−33.9%
140−150
+33.9%
Hitman 3 70−75
+44%
50−55
−44%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+28.7%
110−120
−28.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+43.5%
85−90
−43.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+72.1%
43
−72.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+17.5%
100−110
−17.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+27.7%
65−70
−27.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 98
+109%
45−50
−109%
Far Cry New Dawn 60
+57.9%
35−40
−57.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 44
+69.2%
24−27
−69.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+54.2%
24−27
−54.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+42.9%
27−30
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Far Cry 5 46
+58.6%
27−30
−58.6%
Forza Horizon 4 268
+87.4%
140−150
−87.4%
Hitman 3 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+40.4%
50−55
−40.4%
Metro Exodus 74
+57.4%
45−50
−57.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+47.3%
55−60
−47.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+51.6%
30−35
−51.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 170−180
+25.5%
140−150
−25.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+40.5%
40−45
−40.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 46
+84%
24−27
−84%
Far Cry New Dawn 32
+60%
20
−60%
Hitman 3 27−30
+40%
20−22
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170
+29.7%
120−130
−29.7%
Metro Exodus 46
+100%
23
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+51.7%
29
−51.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27
+80%
14−16
−80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 23
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+73.5%
30−35
−73.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+36.4%
21−24
−36.4%

This is how RX Vega 56 and GTX 970 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 56 is 43% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 56 is 73% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 56 is 18% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 240% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 970 is 51% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 56 is ahead in 69 tests (96%)
  • GTX 970 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.26 25.01
Recency 14 August 2017 19 September 2014
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 148 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 37% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 970, on the other hand, has 41.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 970 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 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
GeForce GTX 970

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.


4.3 792 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 4836 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 970 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.