Radeon R7 350 vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Place in the ranking	519	603
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.84	no data
Power efficiency	3.20	6.96
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GF114	Cape Verde
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	25 January 2011 (13 years ago)	6 July 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	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 cores	384	512
Core clock speed	823 MHz	800 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	52.67	25.60
Floating-point processing power	1.263 TFLOPS	0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	32

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 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	168 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1002 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	128.3 GB/s	72 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	-

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 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Full HD	66 +46.7%	45−50 −46.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.77

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+50%

8−9
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +48.6%	35−40 −48.6%
Hitman 3	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +60%	35−40 −60%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +48.6%	35−40 −48.6%
Hitman 3	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +60%	35−40 −60%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +48.6%	35−40 −48.6%
Hitman 3	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +60%	35−40 −60%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+57.1%

14−16

−57.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Hitman 3	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+44.4%

9−10
−44.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Hitman 3	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+60%

5−6

−60%

This is how GTX 560 Ti and R7 350 compete in popular games:

GTX 560 Ti is 58% faster in 900p
GTX 560 Ti is 47% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.94	5.59
Recency	25 January 2011	6 July 2016
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	55 Watt

GTX 560 Ti has a 42% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 209.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

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