GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon RX Vega 2 Radeon RX Vega 3 Radeon RX Vega 5 Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 9
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 560 OEM GTX 560 Ti 448 GTX 570 GTX 570 Rev. 2 GTX 580 GTX 580 Rev. 2 GTX 590

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
8.85
+8.3%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GTX 560 Ti 448 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
GTX 560 Ti 448 GTX 560 Ti 448

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking497516
Place by popularity32not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.70
Power efficiency41.122.71
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameVegaGF110
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2020 (5 years ago)29 November 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores512448
Core clock speedno data732 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt210 Watt
Texture fill rateno data40.99
Floating-point processing powerno data1.312 TFLOPS
ROPsno data40
TMUsno data56

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data1280 MB
Memory bus widthno data320 Bit
Memory clock speedno data950 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data152.0 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 Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-2.0

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 8.85
+8.3%
GTX 560 Ti 448 8.17

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 3743
GTX 560 Ti 448 4210
+12.5%

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 HD22
+22.2%
18−21
−22.2%
1440p17
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
4K10
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data16.06
1440pno data20.64
4Kno data32.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 24
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 19
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Battlefield 5 39
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Counter-Strike 2 9
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Far Cry 5 21
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Fortnite 47
+17.5%
40−45
−17.5%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 5 21
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Valorant 80−85
+12%
75−80
−12%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 11
+10%
10−11
−10%
Battlefield 5 33
+10%
30−33
−10%
Counter-Strike 2 9
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 48
+20%
40−45
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Dota 2 51
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
Far Cry 5 20
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Fortnite 31
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 5 13
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Metro Exodus 16
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Valorant 80−85
+12%
75−80
−12%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Dota 2 48
+20%
40−45
−20%
Far Cry 5 19
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 5 14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Valorant 37
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Metro Exodus 10
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Valorant 95−100
+11.8%
85−90
−11.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 16
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 6
+20%
5−6
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Valorant 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 18
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry 5 8
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTX 560 Ti 448 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 22% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 21% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 11% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.85 8.17
Recency 7 January 2020 29 November 2011
Chip lithography 7 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 210 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1300% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
vs
GTX 960A GeForce GTX 960A
GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
R7 260X Radeon R7 260X
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
vs
HD 6970M Crossfire Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire
RTX A5500 RTX A5500
vs
PRO W7600 W7600
Arc A550M Arc A550M
vs
RTX 3050 Mobile Refresh 4 GB 3050 Mobile Refresh 4 GB
RTX 3070 6144SP 3070 6144SP
vs
RX 7700 XT 7700 XT
RTX 3050 OEM NVIDIA RTX 3050 OEM
vs
Jetson Orin NX 16 GB NX 16 GB
Arc A770 Arc A770
vs
RTX A500 Mobile A500 Mobile
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
vs
RX 8800 XT 8800 XT
UHD Graphics 24EU UHD Graphics 24EU
vs
Radeon 760M 760M
UHD Graphics 32EU UHD Graphics 32EU
vs
UHD Graphics 630 Mobile Graphics 630 Mobile
Arc A580 Arc A580
vs
ROG Ally GPU GPU
Arc A750 Arc A750
vs
RX 6300 6300

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.8 1346 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 28 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) or GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.