Radeon HD 7870 vs RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile with Radeon HD 7870, including specs and performance data.
HD 7870 outperforms RX 560 Mobile by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 431 | 418 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | 3.00 |
| Power efficiency | 13.99 | 4.70 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 5 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 560 Mobile has 89% better value for money than HD 7870.
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 | 896 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 80.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | 2.56 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 153.6 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| 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 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 75−80
−12%
| 84
+12%
|
| Full HD | 43
−53.5%
| 66
+53.5%
|
| 4K | 36
+2.9%
| 35−40
−2.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33
+127%
| 5.29
−127%
|
| 4K | 2.78
+259%
| 9.97
−259%
|
- RX 560 Mobile has 127% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile has 259% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−6.5%
|
45−50
+6.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−8.6%
|
35−40
+8.6%
|
| Fortnite | 87
+31.8%
|
65−70
−31.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−5.2%
|
100−110
+5.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−6.5%
|
45−50
+6.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
−5.8%
|
160−170
+5.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−4.1%
|
75−80
+4.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
−26.7%
|
35−40
+26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 63
−4.8%
|
65−70
+4.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−7.5%
|
40−45
+7.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+12.5%
|
40−45
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
−2.9%
|
36
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−5.2%
|
100−110
+5.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−6.5%
|
45−50
+6.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−4.1%
|
75−80
+4.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−40.7%
|
35−40
+40.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−5.2%
|
100−110
+5.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50
−32%
|
65−70
+32%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−6.3%
|
85−90
+6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−25.5%
|
65−70
+25.5%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−6%
|
120−130
+6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−9.1%
|
60−65
+9.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−7.9%
|
40−45
+7.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 36
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and HD 7870 compete in popular games:
- HD 7870 is 12% faster in 900p
- HD 7870 is 53% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 3% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 227% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7870 is 208% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
- HD 7870 is ahead in 60 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.22 | 12.00 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 5 March 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 175 Watt |
RX 560 Mobile has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 218.2% lower power consumption.
HD 7870, on the other hand, has a 7% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 560 Mobile and Radeon HD 7870.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon HD 7870 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
