AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce GTX 980 versus the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is not a close contest, and the two available head-to-head measurements make that clear immediately. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980 records a score of 34,676 against the Vega 8 Mobile’s 7,435. That is a 366.4% advantage, meaning the discrete NVIDIA part delivers more than four times the compute throughput in this specific workload. The result is decisive and leaves no ambiguity about which card dominates raw parallel processing.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The GTX 980 scores 22,543, while the Vega 8 Mobile manages 6,970. The delta here is 223.4%, so the NVIDIA card is still more than three times faster. Both tests are compute-oriented rather than pure rasterization, but they are the only direct comparisons in the database. The consistent pattern across two different API families, OpenCL and Vulkan, suggests the gap is not an artifact of a single driver or workload type.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the GTX 980 sits at 8,167 across all its recorded tests, while the Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203. That is a 13.4% difference in aggregate, but the head-to-head deltas are far larger, which indicates the shared tests are weighted heavily toward the NVIDIA card’s strengths. The percentile rankings reinforce the hierarchy: the GTX 980 lands in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 8 Mobile sits at the 39th percentile. Neither card is near the top of the database, but the NVIDIA part is clearly the stronger of the two.

The nearest rivals for each card also contextualize the gap. The GTX 980’s closest competitor in average score is the GeForce GTX 950M, which trails by just 0.4%. The Vega 8 Mobile’s nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 750, which is 0.3% behind it. So the Vega 8 Mobile competes with entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations ago, while the GTX 980 trades blows with much newer midrange mobile parts. The separation in class is evident.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980 wins both head-to-head tests, so on the basis of the recorded data, it has no weaknesses relative to the Vega 8 Mobile. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 34,676 is not just a win, it is a landslide. The Vega 8 Mobile would need roughly a 4.7x improvement to match that number. Similarly, the Vulkan score of 22,543 versus 6,970 leaves no room for a counterargument. In compute-heavy tasks such as physics simulations, data processing, or any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan for general-purpose math, the GTX 980 is the only rational choice.

The Vega 8 Mobile, however, has one structural advantage that is not visible in the benchmark scores: power consumption. Its TDP is 25 W, compared to the GTX 980’s 165 W. That is a 6.6x difference in thermal design power. The Vega 8 Mobile is an integrated processor graphics unit, meaning it draws from the same power budget as the CPU and requires no additional power connectors. The GTX 980, by contrast, needs two 6-pin connectors and a suggested 450 W power supply. For a thin-and-light laptop, the Vega 8 Mobile is the only feasible option, even if its performance is far lower.

The GTX 980 also wins on memory bandwidth. It has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.4 GB/s. The Vega 8 Mobile uses system shared memory, so its bandwidth is dependent on the host system’s RAM configuration. In practice, that means the Vega 8 Mobile will always be at a disadvantage in memory-intensive scenarios, and the database records its bandwidth as “System Dependent” with no fixed figure. The GTX 980’s dedicated pool is a clear win for gaming at higher resolutions or for any workload that needs large, fast data transfers.

Rasterization and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The GTX 980’s pixel rate is 77.82 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s. The Vega 8 Mobile manages 8.808 GPixel/s and 35.23 GTexel/s. That is an 8.8x advantage in pixel fill and a 4.4x advantage in texture fill. For traditional 3D rendering, the GTX 980 is in a different league entirely.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 if the workload is compute-heavy or gaming-focused and the system can accommodate a dual-slot, 267 mm card with a 165 W TDP and two 6-pin connectors. The benchmark data shows it is 366.4% ahead in OpenCL and 223.4% ahead in Vulkan. It also has a dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for modern game textures and high-resolution rendering. The GTX 980 is end-of-life, but it remains a capable discrete solution for desktop builds from its era.

Choose the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile if the priority is integration, power efficiency, and portability. Its 25 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for laptops where a discrete GPU is physically impossible. The data shows it is only 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 750 in average score, so it can handle light gaming and basic 3D acceleration. It is not competitive with the GTX 980, but it does not need to be; it serves an entirely different market segment.

The verdict is straightforward: for performance, the GTX 980 wins every recorded test. For efficiency and integration, the Vega 8 Mobile wins by design. There is no scenario in the data where the Vega 8 Mobile outperforms the GTX 980, so the decision comes down to platform constraints rather than raw capability.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980 in OpenCL?

The GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Vega 8 Mobile scores 7,435. That is a 366.4% difference in favor of the GTX 980.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

The GTX 980 records 22,543 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 6,970 for the Vega 8 Mobile. The delta is 223.4%, again favoring the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

The GTX 980 has 2,048 shading units, while the Vega 8 Mobile has 512. The NVIDIA part also has 128 texture mapping units and 64 ROPs, compared to 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the AMD part.

Q: Can the Vega 8 Mobile play games?

Based on its average benchmark score of 7,203 and its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 750, it can handle older or less demanding titles. It is not in the same class as the GTX 980, which averages 8,167 and sits 13.4% higher in aggregate.

Q: Why is the Vega 8 Mobile used in laptops if it is so slow?

Its TDP is 25 W, compared to 165 W for the GTX 980. It is an integrated processor graphics solution that requires no power connectors and fits in an IGP slot, making it suitable for portable devices where power and space are limited.

Q: What is the memory situation for each card?

The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent and no fixed figure.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GTX 980 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm node. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Vega 8 Mobile uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture on the Raven-M chip, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It has 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, which works out to 23.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is smaller and denser, but the NVIDIA chip is larger in absolute transistor count.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The GTX 980 has a dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with a 256-bit bus and 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile shares system memory, so its capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host laptop’s RAM. This is the single biggest architectural divide between the two: one is a discrete card with its own resources, the other is an integrated solution that borrows from the CPU’s memory pool.

Core counts reflect the performance gap. The GTX 980 packs 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Vega 8 Mobile has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA card’s pixel rate is 77.82 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s. The AMD part manages 8.808 GPixel/s and 35.23 GTexel/s. The compute output is equally lopsided: the GTX 980 delivers 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Vega 8 Mobile offers 1,127.4 GFLOPS.

The Vega 8 Mobile does have a feature the GTX 980 lacks: FP16 support. It is rated at 2.255 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The GTX 980 has no recorded FP16 capability. For workloads that can use half precision, the Vega 8 Mobile has a relative advantage, though its absolute FP32 performance is far below the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds and power targets also differ sharply. The GTX 980 runs at a 1127 MHz base clock and 1216 MHz boost, with memory at 1753 MHz or 7 Gbps effective. The Vega 8 Mobile has a 300 MHz base clock and 1101 MHz boost. The GTX 980’s TDP is 165 W, while the Vega 8 Mobile’s is 25 W. The NVIDIA card requires a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin power connectors, and a 450 W suggested power supply. The AMD part is an IGP with no power connectors and no discrete dimensions.

Both cards support DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, though the GTX 980 lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 8 Mobile lists Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 980 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Vega 8 Mobile’s display outputs are portable device dependent. The GTX 980 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the Vega 8 Mobile is hardwired as an IGP with no expansion bus.

Release timing also separates them. The GTX 980 launched on September 18, 2014, with a launch MSRP of 549 USD. The Vega 8 Mobile arrived on January 7, 2019. Both are now end-of-life. The GTX 980 succeeded the GeForce 700 series and was succeeded by the GeForce 10 series. The Vega 8 Mobile succeeded the GCN 3.0 IGP and was succeeded by the Navi II IGP.