AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and AMD Radeon Vega 8 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics: a dedicated discrete GPU from 2015 versus an integrated graphics processor from 2018. The data shows the GTX 960M holds a lead in overall average benchmark score, posting 9,645 against the Vega 8’s 9,221, which places them at the 46th and 45th percentiles of all GPUs respectively. However, the Vega 8’s newer architecture and lower power draw make this a closer contest than the raw specs suggest, with the real-world choice depending heavily on whether you prioritize raw compute throughput or system-level efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M leads with an average benchmark score of 9,645, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 trails at 9,221. This places the GTX 960M in the 46th percentile of all GPUs and the Vega 8 in the 45th percentile.

Q: What is the performance gap in OpenCL and Vulkan tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960M scores 11,045 versus the Vega 8’s 8,822, a 25.2% advantage for NVIDIA. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows dramatically: the GTX 960M scores 8,245 versus the Vega 8’s 8,134, a mere 1.4% difference.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The GTX 960M uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses system shared memory, meaning its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent, offering no dedicated video memory.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each?

A: The GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM module slot, while the Vega 8 has a TDP of just 25 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP). Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This gives the Vega 8 a feature-level advantage in the API hierarchy.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The GTX 960M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, with a delta of 0.1% in average score. The Vega 8’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 890M, also at a 0.1% delta, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 just 0.6% ahead of it.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is stark. The GTX 960M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Vega 8 uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven chip, built on a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip contains 4,940 million transistors across a 210 mm² die, giving a much higher transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 960M fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the Vega 8 has fewer units overall: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The GTX 960M’s pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s more than doubles the Vega 8’s 8.800 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s exceeds the Vega 8’s 35.20 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the GTX 960M delivers 1.505 TFLOPS against the Vega 8’s 1,126.4 GFLOPS, though the Vega 8 counters with FP16 support at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the GTX 960M lacks.

Clock behavior also contrasts sharply. The GTX 960M runs at a base clock of 1097 MHz with a boost of 1176 MHz, while the Vega 8 has a much lower base of 300 MHz but boosts to 1100 MHz. Memory is another fundamental split: the GTX 960M has dedicated GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Vega 8 relies entirely on system shared memory, making its performance dependent on the host system’s RAM. Finally, the API support shows a generational difference: the Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows the GTX 960M winning both recorded tests, but the margin tells a compelling story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960M scores 11,045 against the Vega 8’s 8,822, a decisive 25.2% victory for NVIDIA. This large gap reflects the GTX 960M’s dedicated memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s and higher FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS, which are critical for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The Vega 8’s system shared memory and lower pixel rate of 8.800 GPixel/s simply cannot keep pace in this scenario.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the GTX 960M scores 8,245 versus the Vega 8’s 8,134, a razor-thin 1.4% difference. This near-tie suggests that in modern graphics APIs, the Vega 8’s architectural advantages — its 14 nm process, higher transistor density, and DirectX 12 (12_1) support — nearly neutralize the GTX 960M’s raw compute lead. The Vega 8’s higher boost clock of 1100 MHz, close to the GTX 960M’s 1176 MHz, also helps close the gap in API-bound workloads.

Across the two tests, the GTX 960M secures 2 wins against 0 for the Vega 8. However, the 1.4% Vulkan margin is within the noise of real-world variance, meaning the Vega 8 is effectively competitive in Vulkan-based applications. The 25.2% OpenCL gap, by contrast, is a clear and repeatable advantage for the GTX 960M. When comparing to their respective nearest rivals, the GTX 960M sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and Tesla C2070, while the Vega 8 is within 0.9% of the GTX 850M, showing both cards are solidly mid-pack performers.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced verdict. For users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL applications, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is the unambiguous choice, offering a 25.2% lead in that specific benchmark. The GTX 960M also holds the overall average score advantage at 9,645 versus 9,221, and it wins both head-to-head tests. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth provides a level of consistency that shared memory cannot match.

However, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 is far from a poor performer. Its 1.4% deficit in Vulkan makes it effectively tied with the GTX 960M in that API, and its 25 W TDP is one-third of the GTX 960M’s 75 W requirement. For thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is paramount, the Vega 8’s 14 nm process and 23.5M / mm² transistor density represent a more modern design. The Vega 8 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), giving it a feature-level advantage over the GTX 960M’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

The verdict is not a blanket recommendation for either card. The GTX 960M wins on raw performance, compute-heavy tasks, and dedicated memory bandwidth. The Vega 8 wins on efficiency, API features, and modern process technology. A user prioritizing frame rates in OpenCL-based workloads should pick the GTX 960M; a user prioritizing battery life and system integration should pick the Vega 8. The 1.4% Vulkan gap means that for most modern games, the difference will be imperceptible, making the Vega 8’s lower power draw the more practical choice in that scenario.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, while the Vega 8 uses the Raven chip with GCN 5.0. The GTX 960M is built on a 28 nm TSMC process, whereas the Vega 8 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor counts are 1,870 million versus 4,940 million, and die sizes are 148 mm² versus 210 mm², resulting in transistor densities of 12.6M / mm² and 23.5M / mm² respectively.

Clocks differ markedly: the GTX 960M runs at 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost, while the Vega 8 runs at 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. Memory is the biggest split — the GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 8 has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. Compute units favor NVIDIA: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates are 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, versus 8.800 GPixel/s and 35.20 GTexel/s for AMD.

FP32 performance is 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960M versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS for the Vega 8, but the Vega 8 has FP16 at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1) where the GTX 960M has none. TDP is 75 W versus 25 W. The GTX 960M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Vega 8 is an IGP with an IGP bus interface. API support shows the GTX 960M with DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, versus the Vega 8 with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Release dates are 2015-03-12 for NVIDIA and 2018-02-11 for AMD, with predecessors GeForce 800M and GCN 3.0 IGP, and successors GeForce 10 Mobile and Vega II IGP respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 25.2% head-to-head advantage in that test, combined with its dedicated 80.19 GB/s memory bandwidth and 1.505 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, makes it the clear pick for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific computing, or any OpenCL-based application. The GTX 960M also wins in overall average benchmark score, sitting at 9,645 versus the Vega 8’s 9,221, and it holds the 46th percentile ranking versus the Vega 8’s 45th. For users who need consistent, predictable performance from a discrete GPU with its own memory pool, the GTX 960M is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 25 W TDP is exactly one-third of the GTX 960M’s 75 W, making it dramatically more suitable for ultra-portable laptops where power draw directly impacts battery life and thermal headroom. The Vega 8’s 14 nm process and 23.5M / mm² transistor density demonstrate a more advanced manufacturing approach, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support exceeds the GTX 960M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). In Vulkan workloads, the Vega 8 is nearly tied with the GTX 960M, scoring 8,134 against 8,245 — a 1.4% gap that is unlikely to be noticeable in practice. For users who play modern Vulkan-based games on a thin laptop, the Vega 8 offers comparable performance at a fraction of the power cost.

The split is clean: the GTX 960M for raw compute and dedicated memory, the Vega 8 for efficiency, modern API features, and integrated system design. Neither card dominates the other across all metrics, and the choice should be guided by the specific workload and platform constraints of the target system.