Radeon RX 6950 XT vs GeForce GTX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 and Radeon RX 6950 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
6950 XT outperforms GTX 560 by a whopping 912% 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 | 624 | 24 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.67 | 31.81 |
| Power efficiency | 3.44 | 15.59 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2011 (15 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 6950 XT has 1805% better value for money than GTX 560.
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 cores | 336 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 99 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 45.36 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 128 |
| TMUs | 56 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 2x 8-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 | 21−24 | 218
+938%
|
| 1440p | 12−14 | 133
+1008%
|
| 4K | 8−9 | 84
+950%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.48 | 5.04
+46.8%
|
| 1440p | 16.58 | 8.26
+50.2%
|
| 4K | 24.88 | 13.08
+47.4%
|
- RX 6950 XT has 47% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT has 50% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT has 47% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 347 | 347 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351 | 351 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 161 | 161 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 349 | 349 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 257 | 257 |
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 339 | 339 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 143 | 143 |
| Far Cry 5 | 181 | 181 |
| Fortnite | 300−350 | 300−350 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 400−450 | 400−450 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 159 | 159 |
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 318 | 318 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 128 | 128 |
| Dota 2 | 199 | 199 |
| Far Cry 5 | 173 | 173 |
| Fortnite | 300−350 | 300−350 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 172 | 172 |
| Metro Exodus | 189 | 189 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 376 | 376 |
| Valorant | 400−450 | 400−450 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 122 | 122 |
| Dota 2 | 167 | 167 |
| Far Cry 5 | 164 | 164 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 216 | 216 |
| Valorant | 400−450 | 400−450 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350 | 300−350 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 236 | 236 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550 | 500−550 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 153 | 153 |
| Metro Exodus | 120 | 120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 450−500 | 450−500 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 93 | 93 |
| Far Cry 5 | 163 | 163 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170 | 160−170 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 58 | 58 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 174 | 174 |
| Metro Exodus | 77 | 77 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 144 | 144 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46 | 46 |
| Dota 2 | 141 | 141 |
| Far Cry 5 | 124 | 124 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100 | 95−100 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
This is how GTX 560 and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 938% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 1008% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 950% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.63 | 67.08 |
| Recency | 17 May 2011 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 335 Watt |
GTX 560 has 55% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 912% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6950 XT 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.
