Radeon RX 560X vs E8950
Aggregated performance score
E8950 outperforms RX 560X by 71% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 343 | 469 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | no data | 0.77 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2017) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (8 years old) | 11 April 2018 (6 years old) |
| Current price | no data | $999 |
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 | 2048 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,096 gflops | 2,611 gflops |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | MXM Module | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 14.13 | 8.25 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 75 Watt |
The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560X 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.
