GeForce GTX 560 vs FirePro D500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro D500 with GeForce GTX 560, including specs and performance data.
D500 outperforms GTX 560 by a considerable 49% 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 | 490 | 611 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.66 |
| Power efficiency | 2.78 | 3.41 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GF114 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 17 May 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1536 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 274 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 99 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 69.60 | 45.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.227 TFLOPS | 1.089 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 243.8 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
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 | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI | 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.88 | 6.65 |
| Recency | 18 January 2014 | 17 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 274 Watt | 150 Watt |
FirePro D500 has a 49% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 560, on the other hand, has 83% lower power consumption.
The FirePro D500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro D500 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 560 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
