GeForce GTX 560M SLI vs FirePro W9000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
D500 D700 S9000 S9010 S9050 S10000 S10000 Passive S10000 Passive 12GB W8000 W9000 Radeon Sky 700 Radeon Sky 900
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
560M 560M SLI 570M 580M 580M SLI 780M 850M 860M 950M 960M 970M 980M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W9000 with GeForce GTX 560M SLI, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W9000
2012, $3,999
6 GB GDDR5, 350 Watt
14.64
+141%

W9000 outperforms 560M SLI by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
GTX 560M SLI GTX 560M SLI

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking403648
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.40no data
Power efficiency4.134.70
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTahitiN12E-GS
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date14 June 2012 (14 years ago)6 January 2011 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2048384
Core clock speed975 MHz775 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate124.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.994 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no data
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KBno data

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GBno data
Memory bus width384 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth264 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

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 Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDIno data
StereoOutput3D+-
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Palworld 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 14.64 6.07
Recency 14 June 2012 6 January 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 100 Watt

FirePro W9000 has a 141% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 560M SLI, on the other hand, has 250% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W9000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 560M SLI is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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

FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
CMP 30HX CMP 30HX
GTX 560M SLI GeForce GTX 560M SLI
vs
GTX 850M GeForce GTX 850M
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
UHD Graphics 16EU Mobile 16EU Mobile
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
FirePro M5100 M5100
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
GT 740M 740M
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
HD 7640G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics 7640G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
HD 8450G 8450G
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
HD 8830M 8830M
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
ATI Mobility HD 4350 4350
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
Go 7600 7600
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
HD 6450 6450
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
RX 580 XTR 580 XTR

Community ratings

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

3.4 5 votes

Rate FirePro W9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 560M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W9000 or GeForce GTX 560M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.