AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs AMD Radeon Vega 3

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M and AMD Radeon Vega 3 sit at opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, yet both target end-of-life systems. The GTX 970M, a discrete MXM module from NVIDIA’s GeForce 900M generation, delivers dominant benchmark scores across every shared test, while the Vega 3, an integrated graphics processor from AMD’s Picasso generation, offers a far lower power envelope. Head-to-head data shows the GTX 970M winning both available comparisons by margins exceeding 360%, but the Vega 3 counters with a much newer process node and a fraction of the power draw. Neither part is a modern performer — the GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, the Vega 3 at the 25th — but their architectural philosophies diverge sharply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests tell a one-sided story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 against the Vega 3’s 3,963, a delta of 378.1% in NVIDIA’s favor. That is not a marginal win; it is a four-to-one blowout. The Vulkan result is nearly identical in proportion: the GTX 970M posts 18,292 while the Vega 3 manages 3,961, a 361.8% advantage. These are the only shared benchmarks in the data pack, and NVIDIA wins both, giving the GTX 970M a 2–0 sweep in head-to-head tests.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite reinforces the gap. The GTX 970M’s average benchmark score across all tests is 4,628, while the Vega 3 averages 4,268 — a difference of roughly 8.4%. That smaller average delta reflects the GTX 970M’s additional test results, which include Passmark scores (G3D: 5,704, G2D: 381, GPU compute: 2,289) and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (472). The Vega 3, by contrast, has only three recorded benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL, Vulkan, and Metal (4,880). In the Vulkan test, the GTX 970M leads by 361.8%, but in OpenCL the margin is even larger at 378.1%. The Vega 3’s nearest rivals in the data pack — the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (average 4,282, delta −0.3%) and AMD FirePro W2100 (average 4,295, delta −0.6%) — cluster closely around its average, confirming the Vega 3’s position as a low-end part. The GTX 970M’s nearest rivals, meanwhile, include the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (average 4,621, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (average 4,657, delta −0.6%), showing it sits in a slightly higher performance tier despite its age.

The percentile rankings underscore the separation. The GTX 970M ranks at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, the Vega 3 at the 25th. While both are below the median, the GTX 970M’s raw compute advantages in FP32 (2.657 TFLOPS vs 422.4 GFLOPS) and texture rate (83.04 GTexel/s vs 13.20 GTexel/s) explain why its per-test scores are so much higher. The Vega 3’s pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s is less than a tenth of the GTX 970M’s 49.82 GPixel/s, a gap that would manifest in any resolution-intensive workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 970M dominates. Its FP32 throughput is 2.657 TFLOPS versus the Vega 3’s 422.4 GFLOPS, and it leads by 378.1% in Geekbench OpenCL and 361.8% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Does the Vega 3 have any advantage in the head-to-head tests?

A: No. The data shows the GTX 970M winning both available head-to-head benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) by margins above 360%. The Vega 3 has no wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of memory architecture?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 3 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance scales with the host system’s RAM.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W, while the GTX 970M’s TDP is not listed in the data pack. However, the Vega 3 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 970M is an MXM module with no power connectors either.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 970M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 3 supports Vulkan 1.3. The Vega 3 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,880, which the GTX 970M lacks.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 970M averages 4,628 across its benchmark suite, while the Vega 3 averages 4,268. That is a 8.4% gap, though the GTX 970M has more test results (10) than the Vega 3 (3).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design schools. The GTX 970M uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die is large at 398 mm², housing 5,200 million transistors for a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Vega 3, meanwhile, employs AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture on the Picasso chip, built by GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process. Its die is smaller at 210 mm² but packs 4,940 million transistors, yielding a higher density of 23.5 million per square millimeter — a reflection of the newer node.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The GTX 970M features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Vega 3 has just 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. That translates directly to throughput: the GTX 970M’s texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s for the Vega 3, and its pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s. The GTX 970M also has a dedicated FP16 path (not listed) while the Vega 3 lists FP16 at 844.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, double its FP32 rate.

Clock behavior also diverges. The GTX 970M runs at a base clock of 924 MHz with a boost of 1038 MHz, while the Vega 3 starts at a very low 300 MHz base but boosts to 1100 MHz. The Vega 3’s wide boost range suggests aggressive power management, consistent with its 15 W TDP. The GTX 970M’s memory is dedicated GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth; the Vega 3’s memory is system-shared with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance varies based on the host CPU and RAM configuration.

API support is close but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 970M runs Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 3 runs Vulkan 1.3. The Vega 3 adds a Metal benchmark (4,880), suggesting macOS or other Metal-based usage, though the GTX 970M has no Metal score recorded.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 970M is built on a 28 nm TSMC process; the Vega 3 uses a 12 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor counts are similar (5,200 million vs 4,940 million), but die size differs significantly (398 mm² vs 210 mm²), giving the Vega 3 a higher transistor density (23.5M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²).

Compute units scale dramatically: the GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the Vega 3 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The GTX 970M’s base clock is 924 MHz with a 1038 MHz boost; the Vega 3’s base is 300 MHz with a 1100 MHz boost. Memory is another clear split: the GTX 970M offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 3 relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Pixel and texture rates favor the GTX 970M overwhelmingly: 49.82 GPixel/s and 83.04 GTexel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.657 TFLOPS against 422.4 GFLOPS. The Vega 3 lists a 15 W TDP; the GTX 970M has no TDP listed. Form factors differ too: the GTX 970M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Vega 3 is an IGP with no slot width. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the GTX 970M and motherboard-dependent for the Vega 3. Release dates are separated by five years: the GTX 970M launched on 2014-10-06, the Vega 3 on 2019-11-19. The GTX 970M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile; the Vega 3’s predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is Vega II IGP. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the GTX 970M is the stronger performer, the Vega 3 the more efficient design. In every head-to-head benchmark, the GTX 970M wins by margins exceeding 360%, and its average benchmark score of 4,628 tops the Vega 3’s 4,268 by roughly 8.4%. For anyone needing raw graphics throughput in a legacy mobile system, the GTX 970M is the obvious choice — its 1,280 shading units, 6 GB of GDDR5, and 120.3 GB/s bandwidth provide a level of compute that the Vega 3’s 192 shading units and system-shared memory cannot approach.

Yet the Vega 3 has its own rationale. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for low-power integrated designs, and its 12 nm process with a 210 mm² die is far more modern than the GTX 970M’s 28 nm, 398 mm² chip. The Vega 3’s boost clock of 1100 MHz is higher than the GTX 970M’s 1038 MHz, and its FP16 capability (844.8 GFLOPS) suggests it can handle certain workloads with greater efficiency. The Vega 3 also supports Vulkan 1.3, close to the GTX 970M’s Vulkan 1.4, and adds a Metal benchmark score.

The percentile rankings tell the real story: both sit near the bottom of the GPU distribution, with the GTX 970M at the 27th percentile and the Vega 3 at the 25th. Neither is a gaming powerhouse by modern standards. The GTX 970M’s nearest rivals (Quadro M3000M, Radeon R5 M320) are within 1% of its average score, while the Vega 3’s (GTX 460M, FirePro W2100) cluster within 0.6%. Choose the GTX 970M if benchmark performance is the sole criterion; choose the Vega 3 if power efficiency and a newer manufacturing process matter more. The data does not support any other conclusion.