AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A are two very different GPUs from different eras, with the former being an integrated solution built into AMD Picasso processors and the latter being a dedicated mobile module from NVIDIA. The database shows they only share one common benchmark result, but that single data point, combined with their architectural profiles, tells a compelling story about how each GPU approaches its workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 scores 12,525 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 points. That gives AMD a 4.4% advantage in this particular test, a modest but clear lead. The AMD part wins the head-to-head matchup with a 1 to 0 record in benchmark wins.

This 4.4% gap is interesting because it is relatively small when you consider the fundamental differences between the two. The RX Vega 11 is an integrated GPU sharing system memory, while the GTX 960A has its own dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus. Typically, dedicated memory provides a significant bandwidth advantage, but the database shows the GTX 960A's bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s, while the RX Vega 11's bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning it varies entirely on the host system's memory configuration. In this OpenCL test, the AMD part still manages to edge ahead despite the memory handicap.

It is also worth looking at the broader benchmark context. The RX Vega 11's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 14,385, which places it at the 56th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 960A's average score is 11,998, putting it at the 51st percentile. The difference in percentile rank is modest, but the RX Vega 11 has three recorded benchmark scores (OpenCL, Vulkan, and Metal), while the GTX 960A only has one. The RX Vega 11's Vulkan score of 13,543 and Metal score of 17,086 suggest that its OpenCL result may underrepresent its overall compute capability, particularly in graphics-oriented workloads.

When looking at nearest rivals, the RX Vega 11 sits remarkably close to some powerful dedicated GPUs. Its average score of 14,385 is just 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373) and 0.2% above the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352), which appears to be a discrete variant of the same architecture. The GTX 960A, meanwhile, has an average score that is 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960) in the database, a strange pairing that suggests the 960A's single benchmark score may not fully represent its real-world performance range.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the RX Vega 11 winning the only head-to-head test, but the use-case split goes beyond that single result. The RX Vega 11's three benchmark scores reveal a pattern: it performs best in Metal (17,086), followed by Vulkan (13,543), and then OpenCL (12,525). This suggests the GPU has strong compute capabilities across multiple API frameworks, with Metal being particularly favorable. The GTX 960A only has an OpenCL score, so the database offers no evidence of how it performs in Vulkan or Metal.

For gaming workloads, the RX Vega 11 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The RX Vega 11's higher DirectX feature level could give it an edge in modern games that use DirectX 12's more advanced features. The GTX 960A's Vulkan 1.4 support is a newer specification, but the older Maxwell architecture may not fully exploit it in practice.

For compute-heavy tasks, the RX Vega 11's raw numbers are telling. It has 704 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The GTX 960A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX Vega 11 has more shaders and TMUs, which likely explains its higher texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s compared to the GTX 960A's 47.04 GTexel/s. However, the GTX 960A has twice the ROPs (16 vs 8), giving it a higher pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s compared to 11.20 GPixel/s.

The FP32 compute performance also favors the AMD part: 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS. That is roughly 31% higher raw compute throughput for the RX Vega 11, which aligns with its OpenCL win. The RX Vega 11 also supports FP16 compute at 3.942 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 960A has no recorded FP16 capability, making the AMD part more suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural lineages. The RX Vega 11 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture (chip codename Picasso) and is built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The GTX 960A uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture (chip GM107) and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 12 nm versus 28 nm means the AMD chip is built on a much denser manufacturing process.

The transistor counts reflect this. The RX Vega 11's Picasso chip contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, for a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The GTX 960A's GM107 chip has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD chip packs nearly double the transistor density, which is expected given the newer process node.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The RX Vega 11 uses system shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the host system's RAM. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The RX Vega 11's memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," so it could be higher or lower than the GTX 960A depending on the system configuration. The GTX 960A's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the RX Vega 11's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

Power and form factor also differ dramatically. The RX Vega 11 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a TDP of 15 W and no power connectors. The GTX 960A is an MXM Module with a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors listed. The RX Vega 11 is designed to live inside a CPU package, while the GTX 960A is a replaceable mobile module. The bus interfaces reflect this: the RX Vega 11 uses the IGP bus, while the GTX 960A uses MXM-B (3.0).

API support shows a few differences. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the RX Vega 11 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Vulkan versions also differ: RX Vega 11 supports Vulkan 1.3, GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4. The RX Vega 11's higher DirectX feature level is notable, as 12_1 enables features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views, which could matter for certain rendering techniques.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 has an FP32 performance of 1.971 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 1.505 TFLOPS. The RX Vega 11 also supports FP16 at 3.942 TFLOPS, while the GTX 960A has no listed FP16 support.

Q: Does the GTX 960A have more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 960A has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega 11 uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," so it cannot be quantified in the same way.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The RX Vega 11 has a TDP of 15 W, while the GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W. The AMD part draws far less power, though it is an integrated solution.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX Vega 11 has a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm² on a 12 nm process. The GTX 960A has 12.6 million per mm² on a 28 nm process. The AMD chip is significantly denser.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RX Vega 11 has 704 shading units, while the GTX 960A has 640. The AMD part also has more texture mapping units (44 vs 40), but the GTX 960A has more ROPs (16 vs 8).

Q: What form factors do these GPUs use?

A: The RX Vega 11 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a motherboard-dependent display output. The GTX 960A is an MXM Module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display output.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 12 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. Transistors are 4,940 million versus 1,870 million. Die size is 210 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 23.5M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm².

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The RX Vega 11 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1400 MHz. The GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at a higher base clock, but the AMD part has a much higher boost ceiling.

Memory is fundamentally different: the RX Vega 11 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ: 704 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for AMD versus 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 61.60 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS.

Power consumption is 15 W versus 75 W. The form factor is IGP versus MXM Module. The bus interface is IGP versus MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are motherboard dependent versus portable device dependent.

API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), both with OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates are far apart: the RX Vega 11 launched on July 6, 2019, while the GTX 960A launched on March 12, 2015. The RX Vega 11 has a listed successor (Vega II IGP), while the GTX 960A has no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data points toward a clear conclusion for compute workloads: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is the stronger performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 4.4%, has 31% higher FP32 throughput, more shading units, more texture units, and double the transistor density. It also supports FP16, which the GTX 960A lacks entirely. For anyone running OpenCL workloads or tasks that can leverage half-precision math, the RX Vega 11 is the better choice.

But the GTX 960A has its own strengths. It has twice the ROPs (16 vs 8), resulting in a 68% higher pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s vs 11.20 GPixel/s). This suggests it may handle fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as certain pixel-heavy rendering passes, more effectively. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with fixed 80.19 GB/s bandwidth also removes the variability that comes with the RX Vega 11's system-dependent memory performance.

The power story is one-sided. The RX Vega 11 draws 15 W, a fraction of the GTX 960A's 75 W. For mobile or low-power systems where every watt matters, the AMD IGP is the obvious pick. The GTX 960A, being an MXM module, requires a system designed to accommodate it and its higher thermal load.

The release timeline also matters. The RX Vega 11 launched in 2019, four years after the GTX 960A. That generational gap explains the architectural advantages: GCN 5.0 on 12 nm versus Maxwell on 28 nm. The newer part naturally benefits from process improvements and feature updates like DirectX 12_1 support.

For users who need a compute-focused integrated GPU that sips power and handles modern API features, the RX Vega 11 is the data-backed choice. For users with a system that already supports MXM modules and needs dedicated memory with predictable bandwidth, the GTX 960A remains a viable option, particularly for pixel-rate-driven work. The benchmark results favor AMD, but the GTX 960A's unique combination of dedicated VRAM and high ROP count means it is not without purpose. The database shows a clear winner in compute, but the real answer depends on the workload and the system constraints around each GPU.