FirePro D500 vs Radeon Pro 560X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560X with FirePro D500, including specs and performance data.
D500 outperforms Pro 560X by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 465 | 429 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.79 | 2.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 July 2018 (6 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
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 | 1024 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1004 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 274 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 69.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.056 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 96 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 243.8 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 | No outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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 | 38
−5.3%
| 40−45
+5.3%
|
| 1440p | 41
−9.8%
| 45−50
+9.8%
|
| 4K | 16
−12.5%
| 18−20
+12.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 36
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 46
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 44
−2.3%
|
45−50
+2.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−7.1%
|
60−65
+7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 34
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Valorant | 21
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 86
−10.5%
|
95−100
+10.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
−8.7%
|
75−80
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−8.1%
|
80−85
+8.1%
|
| Valorant | 26
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 57
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 13
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
This is how Pro 560X and FirePro D500 compete in popular games:
- FirePro D500 is 5% faster in 1080p
- FirePro D500 is 10% faster in 1440p
- FirePro D500 is 13% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.56 | 10.78 |
| Recency | 16 July 2018 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 274 Watt |
Pro 560X has an age advantage of 4 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 265.3% lower power consumption.
FirePro D500, on the other hand, has a 12.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro D500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while FirePro D500 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
