Radeon Pro SSG vs RX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 with Radeon Pro SSG, including specs and performance data.
Pro SSG outperforms RX 560 by a whopping 198% 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 | 534 | 249 |
| Place by popularity | 75 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.48 | 0.50 |
| Power efficiency | 9.03 | 7.77 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (9 years ago) | 26 July 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 560 has 196% better value for money than Pro SSG.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1024 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.611 TFLOPS | 8.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 4 MB |
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 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | HBM |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.170 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 35
−186%
| 100−110
+186%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.83
+3435%
| 99.99
−3435%
|
- RX 560 has 3435% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.80 | 26.23 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 26 July 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 260 Watt |
RX 560 has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 247% lower power consumption.
Pro SSG, on the other hand, has a 198% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon Pro SSG is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro SSG is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
