GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs GTX 1080 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
1080 Ti outperforms 560 Ti 448 by a whopping 486% 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 | 97 | 561 |
| Place by popularity | 53 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.17 | 1.42 |
| Power efficiency | 13.55 | 2.75 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 29 November 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1080 Ti has 1250% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti 448.
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 | 3584 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1481 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1582 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 91 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 354.4 | 40.99 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.34 TFLOPS | 1.312 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 88 | 40 |
| TMUs | 224 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2.75 MB | 640 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 352 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1376 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 484.4 GB/s | 152.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
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.
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 | 129
+514%
| 21−24
−514%
|
| 1440p | 84
+500%
| 14−16
−500%
|
| 4K | 67
+570%
| 10−12
−570%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.42
+154%
| 13.76
−154%
|
| 1440p | 8.32
+148%
| 20.64
−148%
|
| 4K | 10.43
+177%
| 28.90
−177%
|
- GTX 1080 Ti has 154% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti has 148% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti has 177% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+503%
|
40−45
−503%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+494%
|
18−20
−494%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+515%
|
27−30
−515%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+503%
|
40−45
−503%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+494%
|
18−20
−494%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120
+567%
|
18−20
−567%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+540%
|
30−33
−540%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+513%
|
24−27
−513%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+567%
|
21−24
−567%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 125
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+528%
|
40−45
−528%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 154
+542%
|
24−27
−542%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+503%
|
40−45
−503%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+518%
|
45−50
−518%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+494%
|
18−20
−494%
|
| Dota 2 | 133
+533%
|
21−24
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+550%
|
18−20
−550%
|
| Fortnite | 203
+577%
|
30−33
−577%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+504%
|
24−27
−504%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+567%
|
21−24
−567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120
+567%
|
18−20
−567%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+543%
|
14−16
−543%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 115
+539%
|
18−20
−539%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+522%
|
27−30
−522%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+528%
|
40−45
−528%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 149
+521%
|
24−27
−521%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+494%
|
18−20
−494%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+506%
|
18−20
−506%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120
+567%
|
18−20
−567%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+538%
|
16−18
−538%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
| Valorant | 179
+497%
|
30−33
−497%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 163
+504%
|
27−30
−504%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+561%
|
18−20
−561%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+532%
|
50−55
−532%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+500%
|
14−16
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+522%
|
9−10
−522%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+548%
|
27−30
−548%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+527%
|
45−50
−527%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+556%
|
18−20
−556%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+538%
|
16−18
−538%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+500%
|
9−10
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+543%
|
14−16
−543%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 107
+494%
|
18−20
−494%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+500%
|
9−10
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 98
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+500%
|
45−50
−500%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70
+600%
|
10−11
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+500%
|
9−10
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75
+525%
|
12−14
−525%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 51
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Ti and GTX 560 Ti 448 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Ti is 514% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 500% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 570% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 42.07 | 7.18 |
| Recency | 10 March 2017 | 29 November 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 210 Watt |
GTX 1080 Ti has a 485.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 780% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 560 Ti 448, on the other hand, has 19% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 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.
