GeForce GTX 560 vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and GeForce GTX 560, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 56 outperforms GTX 560 by a whopping 375% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 158 | 555 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 23.69 | 1.89 |
| Power efficiency | 11.17 | 3.29 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GF114 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 17 May 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX Vega 56 has 1153% 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 | 3584 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 99 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 45.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 1.089 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 56 |
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 | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 2x 6-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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 128.0 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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
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 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | N/A |
| 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.
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 | 115
+379%
| 24−27
−379%
|
| 1440p | 77
+381%
| 16−18
−381%
|
| 4K | 50
+400%
| 10−12
−400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47
+139%
| 8.29
−139%
|
| 1440p | 5.18
+140%
| 12.44
−140%
|
| 4K | 7.98
+149%
| 19.90
−149%
|
- RX Vega 56 has 139% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 has 140% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 has 149% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+411%
|
18−20
−411%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+386%
|
14−16
−386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+411%
|
18−20
−411%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+403%
|
30−33
−403%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+386%
|
14−16
−386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+444%
|
18−20
−444%
|
| Fortnite | 150
+400%
|
30−33
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+422%
|
27−30
−422%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
+410%
|
30−33
−410%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+395%
|
40−45
−395%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+411%
|
18−20
−411%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+419%
|
27−30
−419%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+386%
|
14−16
−386%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+402%
|
55−60
−402%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+407%
|
27−30
−407%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+415%
|
27−30
−415%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+396%
|
27−30
−396%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+400%
|
14−16
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
+407%
|
27−30
−407%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
+417%
|
24−27
−417%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+395%
|
40−45
−395%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+385%
|
27−30
−385%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+386%
|
14−16
−386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+407%
|
27−30
−407%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+394%
|
18−20
−394%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+419%
|
21−24
−419%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+417%
|
18−20
−417%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+400%
|
24−27
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+395%
|
40−45
−395%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 108
+414%
|
21−24
−414%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+389%
|
45−50
−389%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+417%
|
12−14
−417%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+400%
|
35−40
−400%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+420%
|
45−50
−420%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 99
+450%
|
18−20
−450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+389%
|
18−20
−389%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+389%
|
9−10
−389%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+380%
|
40−45
−380%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+439%
|
18−20
−439%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+392%
|
12−14
−392%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+389%
|
9−10
−389%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 37
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and GTX 560 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 379% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 381% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 is 400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.22 | 7.20 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 17 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has a 375.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 560, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 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.
