GeForce GTX 560 vs 1080
Aggregated performance score
1080 outperforms 560 by 468% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 94 | 515 |
| Place by popularity | 63 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 26.32 | 1.64 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Pascal GP104 | GF114 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 17 May 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $199 |
| Current price | $241 (0.4x MSRP) | $76 (0.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1080 has 1505% better value for money than GTX 560.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 336 |
| CUDA cores | 2560 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | 99 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 45.36 |
| Floating-point performance | 8,873 gflops | 1,088.6 gflops |
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 | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | 8.25" (21 cm) |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 8-pin | Two 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 | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 4000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| 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 | no data | + |
| 3D Gaming | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
1080 outperforms 560 by 468% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
1080 outperforms 560 by 468% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
1080 outperforms 560 by 607% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
1080 outperforms 560 by 481% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
1080 outperforms 560 by 476% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.
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 | 128
+510%
| 21−24
−510%
|
| 1440p | 77
+542%
| 12−14
−542%
|
| 4K | 58
+480%
| 10−12
−480%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 92
+475%
|
16−18
−475%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70−75
+483%
|
12−14
−483%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+515%
|
27−30
−515%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 134
+538%
|
21−24
−538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+556%
|
18−20
−556%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 111
+517%
|
18−20
−517%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140
+483%
|
24−27
−483%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
+510%
|
21−24
−510%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 85−90
+521%
|
14−16
−521%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 96
+500%
|
16−18
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 108
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 83
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70−75
+483%
|
12−14
−483%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 142
+492%
|
24−27
−492%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 113
+528%
|
18−20
−528%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 113
+528%
|
18−20
−528%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 108
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 137
+471%
|
24−27
−471%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
+510%
|
21−24
−510%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 85−90
+521%
|
14−16
−521%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 53
+489%
|
9−10
−489%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 98
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 63
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70−75
+483%
|
12−14
−483%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 123
+486%
|
21−24
−486%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+478%
|
18−20
−478%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 98
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+522%
|
18−20
−522%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+479%
|
14−16
−479%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 74
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
| Hitman 3 | 75−80
+525%
|
12−14
−525%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 64
+540%
|
10−11
−540%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 49
+513%
|
8−9
−513%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 82
+486%
|
14−16
−486%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+481%
|
16−18
−481%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+480%
|
10−11
−480%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 42
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 32
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+522%
|
9−10
−522%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 33
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+489%
|
9−10
−489%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+550%
|
10−11
−550%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
This is how GTX 1080 and GTX 560 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 is 510% faster than GTX 560 in 1080p
- GTX 1080 is 542% faster than GTX 560 in 1440p
- GTX 1080 is 480% faster than GTX 560 in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.13 | 7.07 |
| Recency | 6 May 2016 | 17 May 2011 |
| Cost | $599 | $199 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 150 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
