Radeon RX 560 vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Ti and Radeon RX 560, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 Ti outperforms RX 560 by a whopping 278% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 140 | 476 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 78 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.33 | 1.48 |
| Power efficiency | 9.84 | 8.68 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 980 Ti has 868% better value for money than RX 560.
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 | 2816 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1075 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 189.4 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.06 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 16 |
| TMUs | 176 | 64 |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 170 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.5 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 100
+186%
| 35
−186%
|
| 1440p | 49
+308%
| 12−14
−308%
|
| 4K | 50
+317%
| 12−14
−317%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.49
−129%
| 2.83
+129%
|
| 1440p | 13.24
−60.5%
| 8.25
+60.5%
|
| 4K | 12.98
−57.3%
| 8.25
+57.3%
|
- RX 560 has 129% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 has 61% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 560 has 57% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+308%
|
24−27
−308%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+306%
|
18−20
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+308%
|
24−27
−308%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+300%
|
30−33
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+306%
|
18−20
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+296%
|
27−30
−296%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+326%
|
35−40
−326%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+330%
|
30−33
−330%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+304%
|
24−27
−304%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+280%
|
35−40
−280%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+308%
|
50−55
−308%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+308%
|
24−27
−308%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+300%
|
30−33
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+306%
|
18−20
−306%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+296%
|
70−75
−296%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+296%
|
27−30
−296%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+326%
|
35−40
−326%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+330%
|
30−33
−330%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+304%
|
24−27
−304%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+333%
|
18−20
−333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+280%
|
35−40
−280%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+311%
|
27−30
−311%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+308%
|
50−55
−308%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+292%
|
24−27
−292%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+306%
|
18−20
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+304%
|
24−27
−304%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 72
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+308%
|
50−55
−308%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 88
+319%
|
21−24
−319%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+300%
|
7−8
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+282%
|
60−65
−282%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+292%
|
12−14
−292%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+289%
|
45−50
−289%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+298%
|
60−65
−298%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+319%
|
21−24
−319%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+283%
|
24−27
−283%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+304%
|
50−55
−304%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 132
+340%
|
30−33
−340%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 42
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 32
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
This is how GTX 980 Ti and RX 560 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Ti is 186% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Ti is 308% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 Ti is 317% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.66 | 9.44 |
| Recency | 2 June 2015 | 18 April 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 980 Ti has a 277.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 560, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 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.
