Radeon RX 5700 vs GeForce GTX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 and Radeon RX 5700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 5700 outperforms GTX 560 by a whopping 418% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 564 | 140 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 34 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.63 | 39.38 |
| Power efficiency | 3.28 | 14.17 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2011 (13 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 5700 has 2316% better value for money than GTX 560.
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 | 336 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1465 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 99 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 45.36 | 248.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 7.949 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 56 | 144 |
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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 268 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 21−24
−443%
| 114
+443%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−475%
| 69
+475%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−438%
| 43
+438%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.48
−210%
| 3.06
+210%
|
| 1440p | 16.58
−228%
| 5.06
+228%
|
| 4K | 24.88
−206%
| 8.12
+206%
|
- RX 5700 has 210% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5700 has 228% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5700 has 206% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 307
+0%
|
307
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150
+0%
|
150
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 151
+0%
|
151
+0%
|
| Valorant | 294
+0%
|
294
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Valorant | 291
+0%
|
291
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 277
+0%
|
277
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Valorant | 231
+0%
|
231
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
This is how GTX 560 and RX 5700 compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 is 443% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 is 475% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 is 438% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.20 | 32.13 |
| Recency | 17 May 2011 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 180 Watt |
GTX 560 has 20% lower power consumption.
RX 5700, on the other hand, has a 418.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 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.
