FirePro S9000 vs GeForce GTX 560M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560M SLI with FirePro S9000, including specs and performance data.
S9000 outperforms 560M SLI by a whopping 100% 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 | 648 | 454 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.44 |
| Power efficiency | 4.70 | 4.17 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | N12E-GS | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 24 August 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 384 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 100.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 264 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 1 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−89.2%
|
70−75
+89.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−96.4%
|
55−60
+96.4%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−88.4%
|
130−140
+88.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−98%
|
200−210
+98%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−100%
|
100−105
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−89.2%
|
70−75
+89.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−96.4%
|
55−60
+96.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−88.4%
|
130−140
+88.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−100%
|
100−105
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−96.4%
|
55−60
+96.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−88.4%
|
130−140
+88.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−89.2%
|
70−75
+89.2%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−90.9%
|
21−24
+90.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−91.5%
|
90−95
+91.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−92.3%
|
75−80
+92.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−93.5%
|
120−130
+93.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−76.5%
|
30−33
+76.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−81.8%
|
40−45
+81.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.07 | 12.14 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 24 August 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 350 Watt |
GTX 560M SLI has 250% lower power consumption.
FirePro S9000, on the other hand, has a 100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro S9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560M SLI is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S9000 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.
