Radeon HD 7870M vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
560 OEM 560 Ti 448 570 570 Rev. 2 580 580 Rev. 2 590
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
7290 7330M 7350M 7370M 7400G 7410M 7420G 7430M 7450A 7450M 7470A 7470M 7490M 7500G 7500G + HD 7550M Dual Graphics 7510M 7520G 7520G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics 7530M 7550M 7560G IGP 7570M 7590M 7600G 7610M 7620G 7630M 7640G 7640G + HD 7610M Dual Graphics 7640G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics 7650A 7650M 7650M Rebrand 7660G 7660G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics 7670A 7670M 7670M Rebrand 7690M 7690M Rebrand 7690M XT 7690M XT Rebrand 7730M 7750M 7770M 7850M 7870M 7950M 7970M 7970M Crossfire 7970M X2

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 with Radeon HD 7870M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 560 Ti 448
2011, $289
1280 MB GDDR5, 210 Watt
7.60
+111%

560 Ti 448 outperforms HD 7870M by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GTX 560 Ti 448 GTX 560 Ti 448
HD 7870M HD 7870M

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking575772
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.50no data
Power efficiency2.796.16
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameGF110Heathrow
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date29 November 2011 (14 years ago)24 April 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$289 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores448640
Core clock speed732 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate40.9932.00
Floating-point processing power1.312 TFLOPS1.024 TFLOPS
ROPs4016
TMUs5640
L1 Cache896 KB160 KB
L2 Cache640 KB256 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1280 MB2 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed950 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth152.0 GB/s64 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMINo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.0-

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 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 7.60 3.60
Recency 29 November 2011 24 April 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1280 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 45 Watt

GTX 560 Ti 448 has a 111% higher aggregate performance score.

HD 7870M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 367% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7870M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 7870M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
R7 260X Radeon R7 260X
HD 7870M Radeon HD 7870M
vs
GeForce 940MX GeForce 940MX
GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
R7 360 Radeon R7 360
GTX 560 OEM NVIDIA GTX 560 OEM
vs
RX 6800S 6800S
GTX 560 OEM NVIDIA GTX 560 OEM
vs
H100 SXM5 96 GB 96 GB
GTX 560 OEM NVIDIA GTX 560 OEM
vs
UHD Graphics G7 64EU Mobile G7 64EU Mobile
GTX 560 OEM NVIDIA GTX 560 OEM
vs
H100 PCIe 96 GB 96 GB
GTX 560 OEM NVIDIA GTX 560 OEM
vs
H100 SXM5 80 GB 80 GB
GTX 560 Ti 448 NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
HD 7490M 7490M
GTX 560 Ti 448 NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
HD 7950M 7950M
GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
GTX 470M GeForce GTX 470M
GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
GTX 260M SLI GeForce GTX 260M SLI
GTX 560 Ti 448 NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 448
vs
8800M GTS 8800M GTS

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.9 29 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 15 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7870M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 or Radeon HD 7870M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.