ATI Radeon X800 GTO vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking505not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.61no data
Power efficiency2.71no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)R400 (2004−2008)
GPU code nameGF110R423
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 November 2011 (12 years ago)29 December 2007 (16 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 cores448no data
Core clock speed732 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million160 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt49 Watt
Texture fill rate40.994.800
Floating-point processing power1.312 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4012
TMUs5612

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 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount1280 MB128 MB
Memory bus width320 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed950 MHz350 MHz
Memory bandwidth152.0 GB/s22.4 GB/s

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-HDMI1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0b (9_2)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 November 2011 29 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1280 MB 128 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 49 Watt

GTX 560 Ti 448 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X800 GTO, on the other hand, has 328.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 and Radeon X800 GTO. 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
ATI Radeon X800 GTO
Radeon X800 GTO

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
3.1 31 vote

Rate Radeon X800 GTO 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.