Radeon Pro 560 vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with Radeon Pro 560, including specs and performance data.
GTX 780 Rev. 2 outperforms Pro 560 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 446 | 495 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.08 | no data |
Power efficiency | 2.88 | 8.20 |
Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
GPU code name | GK110B | Polaris 21 |
Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 | 1024 |
Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 907 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 3,000 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 58.05 |
Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 1.858 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 48 | 16 |
TMUs | 192 | 64 |
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).
Laptop size | no data | large |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Length | 267 mm | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | 3 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1270 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
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 HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | 3.5 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 9.10 | 7.78 |
Recency | 10 September 2013 | 18 April 2017 |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 780 Rev. 2 has a 17% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro 560, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.