GeForce GTX 560 vs FirePro W9000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W9000 with GeForce GTX 560, including specs and performance data.
W9000 outperforms GTX 560 by a whopping 121% 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 | 395 | 611 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.40 | 1.66 |
| Power efficiency | 4.13 | 3.41 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GF114 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 17 May 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,999 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 560 has 315% better value for money than FirePro W9000.
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 | 2048 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 99 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 124.8 | 45.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.994 TFLOPS | 1.089 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 512 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 | PCIe 3.0 | 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 |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 264 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| 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 | - | + |
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 14.69 | 6.65 |
| Recency | 14 June 2012 | 17 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 150 Watt |
FirePro W9000 has a 121% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 560, on the other hand, has 133% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W9000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W9000 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.
