Radeon RX 5500M vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 with Radeon RX 5500M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 560 Ti 448
2011, $289
1280 MB GDDR5, 210 Watt
7.59

5500M outperforms 560 Ti 448 by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking571402
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.49no data
Power efficiency2.7812.87
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGF110Navi 14
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date29 November 2011 (14 years ago)7 October 2019 (6 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 cores4481408
Core clock speed732 MHz1375 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1645 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate40.99144.8
Floating-point processing power1.312 TFLOPS4.632 TFLOPS
ROPs4032
TMUs5688
L1 Cache896 KBno data
L2 Cache640 KB2 MB

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1280 MB4 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed950 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth152.0 GB/s224.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.0-

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.

GTX 560 Ti 448 7.59
RX 5500M 14.24
+87.6%

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.

GTX 560 Ti 448 4210
RX 5500M 12276
+192%

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 HD30−35
−90%
57
+90%
1440p30−35
−103%
61
+103%
4K14−16
−114%
30
+114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.63no data
1440p9.63no data
4K20.64no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 53
+0%
53
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 54
+0%
54
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 53
+0%
53
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 43
+0%
43
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 46
+0%
46
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 93
+0%
93
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 191
+0%
191
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Dota 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 79
+0%
79
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 39
+0%
39
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
+0%
72
+0%
Valorant 144
+0%
144
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Dota 2 103
+0%
103
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 59
+0%
59
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45
+0%
45
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 65
+0%
65
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 137
+0%
137
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 25
+0%
25
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 175
+0%
175
+0%
Valorant 136
+0%
136
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 48
+0%
48
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 76
+0%
76
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+0%
20
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 129
+0%
129
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 53
+0%
53
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how GTX 560 Ti 448 and RX 5500M compete in popular games:

  • RX 5500M is 90% faster in 1080p
  • RX 5500M is 103% faster in 1440p
  • RX 5500M is 114% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.59 14.24
Recency 29 November 2011 7 October 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1280 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 85 Watt

RX 5500M has a 87.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 147.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 5500M is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
AMD Radeon RX 5500M
Radeon RX 5500M

Other comparisons

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

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
3.9 372 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5500M 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 RX 5500M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.