Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking507not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.60no data
Power efficiency2.70no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF110Renoir
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 November 2011 (12 years ago)6 January 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$289 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores448384
Core clock speed732 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate40.9936.00
Floating-point processing power1.312 TFLOPS1.152 TFLOPS
ROPs408
TMUs5624

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1280 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width320 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed950 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth152.0 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMINo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 November 2011 6 January 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 15 Watt

Graphics 384SP Mobile has an age advantage of 8 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1300% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 and Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile. We've got no test results to judge.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile
Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 28 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 4 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.