GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs GTX 295

Place in the ranking	754	519
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	1.83
Power efficiency	0.74	3.20
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT200B	GF114
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 January 2009 (15 years ago)	25 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$500	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 560 Ti has 1207% better value for money than GTX 295.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	480	384
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	823 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	170 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	52.67
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	1.263 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	32
TMUs	80	64

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	229 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	2x 6-pin
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	1 GB
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1002 MHz
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	128.3 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 295 3.13

GTX 560 Ti 7.94
+154%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 295 1206

GTX 560 Ti 3058
+154%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	24−27 −163%	63 +163%
Full HD	24−27 −175%	66 +175%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

20.83

3.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

+0%

21−24

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

This is how GTX 295 and GTX 560 Ti compete in popular games:

GTX 560 Ti is 163% faster in 900p
GTX 560 Ti is 175% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.13	7.94
Recency	8 January 2009	25 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	170 Watt

GTX 295 has a 75% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 560 Ti, on the other hand, has a 153.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.