GeForce GTX 280 vs GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti and GeForce GTX 280, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 560 Ti outperforms GTX 280 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 527 | 746 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.77 | 0.12 |
| Power efficiency | 3.23 | 0.98 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GT200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 560 Ti has 1375% better value for money than GTX 280.
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 | 384 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 236 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 48.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 80 |
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 | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 1107 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 141.7 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 63
+163%
| 24−27
−163%
|
| Full HD | 63
+163%
| 24−27
−163%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.95
+584%
| 27.04
−584%
|
- GTX 560 Ti has 584% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
+140%
|
50−55
−140%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 55−60
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
This is how GTX 560 Ti and GTX 280 compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is 163% faster in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 163% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.64 | 3.21 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 16 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 236 Watt |
GTX 560 Ti has a 138% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 38.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
