AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

AMD Radeon Vega 3 and NVIDIA GeForce 830M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The Vega 3 is a 12 nm integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on GCN 5.0, while the 830M is a 28 nm discrete-class part based on Maxwell. Benchmark results show a split decision: the NVIDIA part wins in OpenCL by 8.3%, while the AMD part takes Vulkan by 10.3%. This places them at nearly identical overall performance percentiles—25th for the AMD and 24th for the NVIDIA—making the choice between them far more nuanced than raw averages suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a higher average benchmark score of 4268, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s 3957. However, this average is drawn from three tests for the AMD part (including a strong 4880 Metal score) versus only two for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4324, while the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963. This represents an 8.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part in that specific workload.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test decisively, scoring 3961 versus the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s 3590. This is a 10.3% lead for the AMD part, reversing the OpenCL result.

Q: Do these GPUs differ in memory architecture?

A: Yes. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has a dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory pool with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce 830M, using TSMC’s 28 nm process, has a density of 13.2M per mm².

Q: Are there any API level differences that matter?

A: Yes, particularly for DirectX. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The NVIDIA part does list Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the AMD part lists Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural gap between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on GlobalFoundries’ 12 nm process and uses the GCN 5.0 architecture, featuring a chip codenamed Picasso. It packs 4,940 million transistors onto a 210 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5M transistors per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. This older node contains just 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of only 13.2M per mm². The process advantage is significant—the AMD part crams nearly five times as many transistors into a die that is less than three times the size.

The compute resources also differ in configuration. The AMD Vega 3 fields 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 raster output pipelines (ROPs). The NVIDIA 830M counters with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the AMD part operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the NVIDIA part runs at a much higher base of 1082 MHz and boosts to 1150 MHz. This clock disparity explains why the NVIDIA part achieves higher peak pixel and texture rates: 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s for the AMD.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has a fixed 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Vega 3, being an IGP, has no dedicated VRAM—it shares system memory, with capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as System Shared or System Dependent. This makes the AMD part’s memory performance entirely dependent on the host system’s RAM, while the NVIDIA part has predictable, dedicated resources.

Feature-wise, neither GPU includes ray tracing or tensor cores. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Power consumption diverges sharply: the AMD IGP is rated at 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part draws 33 W, reflecting its discrete nature and higher clock speeds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head matchups exactly one win apiece, making the comparison a study in workload-specific strengths. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M takes a clear victory with a score of 4324 against the AMD Radeon Vega 3’s 3963. That is an 8.3% margin in favor of the NVIDIA part. This result aligns with the 830M’s raw compute advantages: 256 shading units versus 192, and a higher boost clock of 1150 MHz versus 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA part’s higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (18.40 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s) also contribute to its OpenCL dominance, as those workloads often stress fill-rate and texture throughput.

The Vulkan test flips the script completely. Here, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3961, beating the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s 3590 by a substantial 10.3%. This is a notable reversal given the NVIDIA part’s hardware specs. The AMD part’s newer GCN 5.0 architecture and 12 nm process likely provide better driver optimization and scheduling efficiency for modern Vulkan workloads. Additionally, the AMD part’s support for DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the NVIDIA part’s (11_0) suggests a more feature-complete low-level API implementation, which may translate to better Vulkan performance despite lower raw shader counts.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces the tight competition. The AMD Radeon Vega 3’s average score of 4268 sits between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -0.3%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, +0.6%). The NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s average of 3957 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, +0.1%). These deltas show that both GPUs are clustered with mid-range mobile parts from their respective eras, with no clear class separation. Notably, the AMD part’s average is also within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, -1.5%), a far more modern part, though that comparison is based solely on the average benchmark score and should not be over-interpreted.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable parameter. The process node differs: AMD uses 12 nm at GlobalFoundries, while NVIDIA uses 28 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts are 4,940 million versus 1,020 million, and die sizes are 210 mm² versus 77 mm². Clock speeds show the NVIDIA part running higher—base 1082 MHz versus 300 MHz, boost 1150 MHz versus 1100 MHz. The memory configuration is entirely distinct: the AMD part is System Shared, while the NVIDIA part has 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part’s memory bandwidth is System Dependent.

Compute unit counts favor the NVIDIA part: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs versus 192, 12, and 4 on the AMD side. Pixel rate and texture rate also favor NVIDIA: 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is higher on the NVIDIA part at 588.8 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS, while the AMD part offers FP16 at 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) with no FP16 listed for the NVIDIA part. TDP is a major differentiator: 15 W for AMD versus 33 W for NVIDIA. The bus interface is IGP for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are Motherboard Dependent for AMD versus Portable Device Dependent for NVIDIA. DirectX support favors AMD (12_1 versus 11_0), while Vulkan support favors NVIDIA (1.4 versus 1.3). Release dates are far apart: 2019-11-19 for AMD versus 2014-03-11 for NVIDIA. Predecessors and successors also differ—AMD’s lineage runs from GCN 3.0 IGP to Vega II IGP, while NVIDIA’s runs from GeForce 700M to GeForce 900M.

The Verdict

The data supports a workload-dependent choice rather than a clear overall winner. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the better pick for OpenCL-centric applications, where its 8.3% lead in that benchmark and higher raw specs—256 shading units, 588.8 GFLOPS FP32, and dedicated 14.40 GB/s memory—provide a tangible edge. It also offers a more predictable memory subsystem with fixed 2 GB VRAM, which is advantageous for tasks that require consistent bandwidth without relying on system RAM. The NVIDIA part’s higher pixel and texture rates further reinforce its suitability for fill-rate-bound workloads.

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based gaming or compute, where its 10.3% benchmark advantage indicates better API-level efficiency. Its 12 nm process and GCN 5.0 architecture bring modern features like DirectX 12 (12_1) support, which can enable more advanced rendering paths. The AMD part also consumes far less power—15 W versus 33 W—making it the better fit for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and battery constraints are paramount. Its FP16 capability, while not benchmarked here, suggests potential for machine learning or media workloads that leverage half-precision.

Given the 25th versus 24th percentile ranking, these GPUs are effectively peers in overall performance. Users who prioritize OpenCL compute and have access to a power budget should lean toward the NVIDIA GeForce 830M. Users who favor Vulkan performance, power efficiency, and a newer feature set should select the AMD Radeon Vega 3. Neither part is a dominant winner; the choice hinges on the specific API and workload mix. For modern Vulkan titles, the AMD part’s 10.3% lead is decisive. For legacy OpenCL applications, the NVIDIA part’s 8.3% margin is equally clear. The tie in wins (1-1) is a fitting summary—this is a balanced matchup that rewards matching the hardware to the task.