Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 560 Ti outperforms Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 158% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 483 | 725 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.77 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | Kaveri Spectre |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
| Current price | $130 (0.5x MSRP) | no data |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
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 | 384 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 822 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 1,263.4 gflops | no data |
Size and 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 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
Memory
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2004 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | 2.1 | no data |
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.
GeForce GTX 560 Ti outperforms Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 158% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 560 Ti outperforms Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 74% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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%
GeForce GTX 560 Ti outperforms Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 115% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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:
| 900p | 63
+163%
| 24−27
−163%
|
| Full HD | 65
+261%
| 18
−261%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+60%
|
10
−60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+167%
|
6
−167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 560 Ti and R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is 163% faster than R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 261% faster than R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 560 Ti is 600% faster than the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop).
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 560 Ti surpassed R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in all 54 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 7.85 | 3.04 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 14 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
