GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs RTX 3060
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3060 and GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3060 outperforms GTX 560 Ti 448 by a whopping 437% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 86 | 517 |
| Place by popularity | 5 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 69.82 | 1.70 |
| Power efficiency | 17.93 | 2.70 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 January 2021 (4 years ago) | 29 November 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 3060 has 4007% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti 448.
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 | 3584 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1320 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1777 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 199.0 | 40.99 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.74 TFLOPS | 1.312 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 40 |
| TMUs | 112 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | 112 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 242 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 12-pin | 2x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1875 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 152.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | 8.6 | 2.0 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 118
+462%
| 21−24
−462%
|
| 1440p | 68
+467%
| 12−14
−467%
|
| 4K | 47
+488%
| 8−9
−488%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.79
+394%
| 13.76
−394%
|
| 1440p | 4.84
+398%
| 24.08
−398%
|
| 4K | 7.00
+416%
| 36.13
−416%
|
- RTX 3060 has 394% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 3060 has 398% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 3060 has 416% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+500%
|
16−18
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+464%
|
14−16
−464%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+471%
|
24−27
−471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 97
+439%
|
18−20
−439%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 146
+441%
|
27−30
−441%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+487%
|
30−33
−487%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+485%
|
27−30
−485%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 124
+490%
|
21−24
−490%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+489%
|
27−30
−489%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+488%
|
40−45
−488%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+471%
|
24−27
−471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 83
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+456%
|
50−55
−456%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75
+525%
|
12−14
−525%
|
| Dota 2 | 156
+478%
|
27−30
−478%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+463%
|
24−27
−463%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+487%
|
30−33
−487%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+485%
|
27−30
−485%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 96
+500%
|
16−18
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 141
+488%
|
24−27
−488%
|
| Metro Exodus | 81
+479%
|
14−16
−479%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+489%
|
27−30
−489%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 178
+493%
|
30−33
−493%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+488%
|
40−45
−488%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+471%
|
24−27
−471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 72
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 64
+540%
|
10−11
−540%
|
| Dota 2 | 147
+444%
|
27−30
−444%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 127
+505%
|
21−24
−505%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+485%
|
27−30
−485%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 79
+464%
|
14−16
−464%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+489%
|
27−30
−489%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 82
+486%
|
14−16
−486%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+488%
|
40−45
−488%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170−180
+487%
|
30−33
−487%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+466%
|
50−55
−466%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+479%
|
14−16
−479%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50
+456%
|
9−10
−456%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+483%
|
30−33
−483%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+489%
|
45−50
−489%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+478%
|
18−20
−478%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+488%
|
16−18
−488%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+467%
|
21−24
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+511%
|
18−20
−511%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 82
+486%
|
14−16
−486%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+540%
|
10−11
−540%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+453%
|
45−50
−453%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+450%
|
12−14
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 115
+448%
|
21−24
−448%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+500%
|
8−9
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+471%
|
14−16
−471%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 36
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+480%
|
10−11
−480%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
This is how RTX 3060 and GTX 560 Ti 448 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3060 is 462% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3060 is 467% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3060 is 488% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 43.91 | 8.18 |
| Recency | 12 January 2021 | 29 November 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 210 Watt |
RTX 3060 has a 436.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 860% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 23.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3060 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 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.
