AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and AMD Radeon Vega 8 represent two very different approaches to graphics processing: a dedicated add-in board from 2015 versus an integrated GPU from 2018. Despite their contrasting designs, their average benchmark scores place them nearly identical in the overall hierarchy, with the GTX 960 averaging 9273 and the Vega 8 averaging 9221. Both sit at the 45th percentile among all GPUs, making their head-to-head comparison a study in how architecture and memory strategy can offset raw transistor counts and power budgets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear split across the three shared benchmark tests, with each GPU taking a decisive victory in at least one discipline. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 posts a score of 10706, which is 18.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960’s 8773. This is the single largest margin in either direction, and it indicates that in Apple’s Metal API, the Vega 8’s GCN 5.0 architecture has a significant efficiency advantage over the Maxwell 2.0 design.

The Geekbench OpenCL test tells the opposite story with remarkable force. Here, the GTX 960 scores 18925, which is 114.5% higher than the Vega 8’s 8822. This is a landslide victory, more than doubling the AMD part’s output. The absolute difference of over 10,000 points dwarfs the Metal gap, suggesting that the GTX 960’s dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher shading unit count (1024 versus 512) are massively beneficial in OpenCL workloads that are not memory-bandwidth constrained by system RAM.

The third test, Geekbench Vulkan, falls to the NVIDIA card as well, with a score of 9231 versus 8134 for the Vega 8. That 13.5% delta is more modest than the OpenCL result but still a comfortable win. When tallying the head-to-head results, the GTX 960 takes 2 wins out of 3, but the magnitude of the losses matters. The Vega 8’s Metal win is substantial, yet it cannot compensate for the OpenCL deficit. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the GTX 960’s 9273 is only 0.6% above the Vega 8’s 9221, a difference so small that it is within the noise of the nearest rival comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

Benchmark results indicate a strong API-dependent split. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins decisively in Geekbench Metal, making it the preferable choice for applications and games that leverage Apple’s Metal graphics API. Its 10706 Metal score is not just a win over the GTX 960; it is also higher than any of the GTX 960’s own benchmark scores, including its OpenCL and Vulkan results. This suggests that the Vega 8’s compute units are particularly well-tuned for Metal’s execution model.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan. The OpenCL victory is overwhelming, with a 114.5% margin, indicating that the dedicated VRAM and higher fill rates are critical for general-purpose GPU compute. The Vulkan win, while smaller at 13.5%, is still meaningful for modern cross-platform games. For any workload using Vulkan, the GTX 960 provides a measurable performance advantage. Therefore, the use-case split is clear: the Vega 8 is a Metal-first part, while the GTX 960 is the better choice for OpenCL and Vulkan environments. The GTX 960 also has a higher average score overall, so in mixed workloads it edges ahead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 is based on the Raven chip using GCN 5.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer node allows AMD to fit 4,940 million transistors into a slightly smaller 210 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 23.5 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ as well. The GTX 960 features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Vega 8 has exactly half the shading units at 512, along with 32 TMUs and only 8 ROPs. This halving of resources is partly offset by the Vega 8’s support for FP16 arithmetic at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 2.253 TFLOPS for half-precision tasks, while the GTX 960 has no listed FP16 capability. For FP32, the GTX 960 leads with 2.413 TFLOPS versus the Vega 8’s 1,126.4 GFLOPS. The pixel and texture rates mirror this: the GTX 960 posts 37.70 GPixel/s and 75.39 GTexel/s, while the Vega 8 manages only 8.800 GPixel/s and 35.20 GTexel/s. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 8 is limited to Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in nearly every category. The GTX 960 is a discrete card with a 120 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and a single 6-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W power supply. It utilizes 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1127 MHz with a boost of 1178 MHz, and memory runs at 7 Gbps effective. The card measures 241 mm in length and connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, with display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 is an integrated graphics processor with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and no slot width since it resides on the CPU die. It has no dedicated memory; instead, it uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. Its base clock is a low 300 MHz, boosting to 1100 MHz. The bus interface is IGP, and display outputs are Motherboard Dependent. The Vega 8 was released on 2018-02-11, while the GTX 960 launched earlier on 2015-01-21. The GTX 960 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The GTX 960’s predecessor is the GeForce 700 series and its successor is the GeForce 10 series; the Vega 8’s predecessor is the GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is the Vega II IGP. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 has an average benchmark score of 9273, which is 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon Vega 8’s 9221.

Q: How big is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960 scores 18925 versus the Vega 8’s 8822, a 114.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega 8 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Vega 8 wins Geekbench Metal with a score of 10706, which is 18.1% higher than the GTX 960’s 8773.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The GTX 960 has 1024 shading units, while the Vega 8 has 512, exactly half the count.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The GTX 960 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 8 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD Radeon Vega 8 supports Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The data points to a verdict based on workload rather than a universal winner. For users running Metal-based applications, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 is the clear choice, delivering an 18.1% improvement over the GTX 960 in that specific API. Its lower TDP of 25 W, integrated nature, and higher transistor density on a 14 nm process make it a sensible option for compact, power-efficient systems where Metal is the primary graphics interface.

For everyone else, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the superior part. It wins 2 out of 3 head-to-head benchmarks, including a 114.5% blowout in OpenCL and a 13.5% win in Vulkan. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 112.2 GB/s bandwidth, higher FP32 throughput of 2.413 TFLOPS, and faster pixel and texture rates provide a fundamental performance advantage that the Vega 8 cannot overcome in compute-heavy or Vulkan-based scenarios. The GTX 960 also has a slightly higher average score (9273 versus 9221) and a higher percentile rank context, matching rivals like the GTX 465 within 0.2%. The Vega 8’s nearest rival comparison shows it trailing the GTX 960 by 0.6%, reinforcing that the NVIDIA card holds a narrow but consistent edge in aggregate performance. The only reason to choose the Vega 8 is a specific need for Metal performance or the power efficiency of an IGP. Otherwise, the GTX 960’s raw compute and rasterization capabilities make it the data-backed recommendation for OpenCL, Vulkan, and general-purpose graphics workloads.