Radeon RX 560X vs RX 470
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 and Radeon RX 560X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 470 outperforms RX 560X by a whopping 156% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 272 | 518 |
| Place by popularity | 42 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.29 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.09 | 7.57 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | 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 | 2048 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1206 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 154.4 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.94 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | 170 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 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 | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1650 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211.2 GB/s | 112.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
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:
| Full HD | 71
+163%
| 27−30
−163%
|
| 1440p | 39
+179%
| 14−16
−179%
|
| 4K | 38
+171%
| 14−16
−171%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.52 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.59 | no data |
| 4K | 4.71 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 105
+163%
|
40−45
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+174%
|
27−30
−174%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+175%
|
40−45
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+193%
|
30−33
−193%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 73
+170%
|
27−30
−170%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+163%
|
27−30
−163%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+179%
|
24−27
−179%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+164%
|
90−95
−164%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+174%
|
27−30
−174%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 67
+179%
|
24−27
−179%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 59
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+166%
|
65−70
−166%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+158%
|
55−60
−158%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+176%
|
21−24
−176%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+162%
|
21−24
−162%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 62
+158%
|
24−27
−158%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Fortnite | 25
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
This is how RX 470 and RX 560X compete in popular games:
- RX 470 is 163% faster in 1080p
- RX 470 is 179% faster in 1440p
- RX 470 is 171% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.22 | 7.91 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 11 April 2018 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX 470 has a 155.6% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 560X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 60% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 470 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560X 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.
