AMD Radeon HD 8970M vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8970M and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL are two very different answers to the same question: how to deliver discrete-class graphics in a portable machine. The data shows both GPUs land at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, making them direct contemporaries in overall performance despite being separated by five years of architecture evolution. The HD 8970M, a 2013-era mobile part, and the RX Vega M GL, a 2018-era integrated solution, present a fascinating study in how raw specifications and real-world benchmark results do not always align.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a clear, if narrow, split between the two contenders. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M takes the win in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 21237 against the RX Vega M GL’s 19549. That is an 8.6% lead for the older card in this specific compute workload, giving it a 1-0 record in the head-to-head comparisons.

The RX Vega M GL, however, counters with its support for the Vulkan API. While the HD 8970M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170, the RX Vega M GL supports Vulkan 1.3. The data shows the Vega part scored 22757 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, a result that is not directly comparable to the OpenCL scores but demonstrates its capability in a modern graphics API. This suggests a use-case split: the HD 8970M holds a slight edge in OpenCL compute tasks, while the RX Vega M GL is better positioned for modern gaming and applications that leverage Vulkan.

The architecture differences reinforce this split. The HD 8970M, built on GCN 1.0, is a more straightforward compute engine. The RX Vega M GL, based on GCN 4.0, brings architectural refinements that improve efficiency and feature support. The data implies that for legacy OpenCL workloads, the older card remains competitive, but for forward-looking software, the Vega part is the more versatile option.

Architecture Differences

The most significant difference lies in the manufacturing process and the resulting transistor density. The HD 8970M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the RX Vega M GL uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, fitting 5,000 million transistors into a slightly smaller 208 mm² die. That is a density of 24.0 million transistors per square millimeter, a substantial improvement that enables more complex logic in the same physical space.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The HD 8970M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega M GL also has 4 GB, but it uses HBM2 on a massive 1024-bit bus, achieving 179.2 GB/s. This is a 16.7% bandwidth advantage for the Vega part, which is crucial for high-resolution textures and compute workloads. The clock speeds reflect the different design philosophies: the HD 8970M runs at a base of 850 MHz with a boost of 900 MHz, while the RX Vega M GL runs at 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost.

Shader configuration is identical: both have 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. However, the execution rates differ due to clock speeds. The HD 8970M achieves a pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s, while the RX Vega M GL reaches 32.35 GPixel/s and 80.88 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also higher on the Vega part: 2.588 TFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS. The RX Vega M GL also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the HD 8970M lacks entirely.

The power envelope tells a compelling story. The HD 8970M is rated at 100 W and comes as an MXM Module, while the RX Vega M GL is rated at just 65 W and is integrated as an IGP. This means the Vega part delivers higher theoretical throughput while consuming 35% less power, a signal of the efficiency gains from the newer process node and architecture. The HD 8970M uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, whereas the RX Vega M GL is hardwired as an IGP, eliminating the need for a separate bus connection.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M scores 21237, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 19549. The HD 8970M wins by an 8.6% margin. This result is notable because it contradicts the raw specification advantages of the RX Vega M GL, which has higher clocks, more bandwidth, and higher FP32 throughput.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the HD 8970M’s average score of 21237 puts it 0.4% ahead of the RX Vega M GL’s average of 21153. The HD 8970M is also 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, which scores 21035, and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile, which scores 21379. The RX Vega M GL, meanwhile, is 0.6% ahead of the GeForce RTX 5050 and 1.1% behind the RTX A4000 Mobile. These close margins indicate that both AMD parts are clustered in a tight performance band, with the HD 8970M holding a slight edge in OpenCL.

The RX Vega M GL’s Vulkan score of 22757 is its strongest data point. While there is no Vulkan result for the HD 8970M in the pack, the Vega part’s support for Vulkan 1.3 suggests it would outperform the older card in this API, which is increasingly important for modern games. The OpenCL result, however, shows the HD 8970M’s GCN 1.0 architecture is no slouch in compute-heavy legacy workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8970M has an average benchmark score of 21237, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has an average score of 21153. The HD 8970M leads by 0.4%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The RX Vega M GL offers 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth using HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, while the HD 8970M provides 153.6 GB/s via GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Vega part has a 16.7% bandwidth advantage.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The HD 8970M is rated at 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor, while the RX Vega M GL is rated at 65 W and is an integrated IGP. The Vega part consumes 35% less power.

Q: Does the RX Vega M GL support newer APIs than the HD 8970M?

A: Yes. The RX Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the HD 8970M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The HD 8970M wins, scoring 21237 against the RX Vega M GL’s 19549, an 8.6% difference.

Q: Are the shading unit counts the same?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the RX Vega M GL runs at higher clocks, achieving higher pixel and texture rates.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M is the winner in the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with an 8.6% lead. Its percentile ranking of 66 matches the RX Vega M GL, and its average score of 21237 is 0.4% higher. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the HD 8970M is the safer choice according to the numbers.

However, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is the more future-proof option. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and its Vulkan score of 22757 indicate superior performance in modern graphics APIs. It also offers higher theoretical compute (2.588 TFLOPS FP32), more memory bandwidth (179.2 GB/s), and significantly lower power consumption (65 W vs 100 W). For a portable device, the efficiency advantage is substantial.

The specification differences suggest the RX Vega M GL should be the faster card, yet the benchmark data shows the HD 8970M holds its own in OpenCL. This implies that raw specs do not tell the whole story, and driver maturity or architecture-specific optimizations may favor the older GCN 1.0 design in certain workloads. The choice depends on the user’s software stack: legacy OpenCL users should favor the HD 8970M, while those looking toward Vulkan-based titles should pick the RX Vega M GL.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8970M | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Neptune | Polaris 22 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 24.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 931 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 1011 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1200 MHz / 4.8 Gbps effective | 700 MHz / 1400 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.304 TFLOPS | 2.588 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 32.35 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 72.00 GTexel/s | 80.88 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 100 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-13 | 2018-01-31 |