Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs Radeon HD 6970
Aggregated performance score
HD 6970
2010
2048 MB DDR5
7.32
GTX 560 Ti
2011
1024 MB GDDR5
7.84
+7.1%
GeForce GTX 560 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 6970 by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 502 | 483 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.05 | 1.76 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Cayman | GF114 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 14 December 2010 (13 years old) | 25 January 2011 (13 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $369 | $249 |
| Current price | $189 (0.5x MSRP) | $130 (0.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
GTX 560 Ti has 68% better value for money than HD 6970.
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 | 1536 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 822 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 880 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,640 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.48 | 52.67 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,703.4 gflops | 1,263.4 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
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 | DDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 2004 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 128.3 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | N/A |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | 2.1 |
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 HD 6970 by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 560 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 6970 by 7% in Passmark.
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%
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 | 55−60
−14.5%
| 63
+14.5%
|
| Full HD | 60−65
−8.3%
| 65
+8.3%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 6970 and GTX 560 Ti compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- GTX 560 Ti is 14.5% faster than HD 6970
1080p resolution:
- GTX 560 Ti is 8.3% faster than HD 6970
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 560 Ti is 100% faster than the HD 6970.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is ahead in 50 tests (74%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (26%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 7.32 | 7.84 |
| Recency | 14 December 2010 | 25 January 2011 |
| Cost | $369 | $249 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 170 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 6970 and GeForce GTX 560 Ti.
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.
