Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 560 SE
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 SE with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms GTX 560 SE by a whopping 266% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 644 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 61 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.13 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.29 | 83.81 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 February 2012 (12 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 288 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 736 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.33 | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8479 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 957 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 91.87 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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:
| Full HD | 9−10
−278%
| 34
+278%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−350%
| 18
+350%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−367%
| 14
+367%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.00 | no data |
| 1440p | 22.50 | no data |
| 4K | 30.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how GTX 560 SE and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 278% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 780M is 350% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 780M is 367% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.93 | 18.06 |
| Recency | 20 February 2012 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 266.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 SE in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 SE is a desktop card while Radeon 780M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
