GeForce GTX 780M vs Radeon Pro 560X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 560X with GeForce GTX 780M, including specs and performance data.

Pro 560X
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.54

GTX 780M outperforms Pro 560X by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking464456
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.725.54
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21GK104
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date16 July 2018 (6 years ago)11 May 2013 (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 cores10241536
Core clock speed1004 MHz823 MHz
Boost clock speedno data797 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate64.26102.0
Floating-point processing power2.056 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs64128

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 GB/s160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
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. 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.

Pro 560X 9.54
GTX 780M 9.86
+3.4%

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.

Pro 560X 3677
GTX 780M 3800
+3.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro 560X 7590
GTX 780M 7777
+2.5%

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.

Pro 560X 5699
+8.7%
GTX 780M 5244

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 560X 32449
GTX 780M 35965
+10.8%

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.

Pro 560X 17559
+36.6%
GTX 780M 12852

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.

Pro 560X 17037
+34.2%
GTX 780M 12696

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 HD41
−58.5%
65
+58.5%
1440p39
−2.6%
40−45
+2.6%
4K12
+0%
12−14
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Battlefield 5 49
+58.1%
30−35
−58.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 29
+45%
20−22
−45%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 28
+21.7%
21−24
−21.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 38
+35.7%
27−30
−35.7%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−3.1%
65−70
+3.1%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−3.8%
55−60
+3.8%
Metro Exodus 41
+28.1%
30−35
−28.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 36
+28.6%
27−30
−28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 57
+72.7%
30−35
−72.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−1.6%
60−65
+1.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50
+108%
24−27
−108%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Battlefield 5 42
+35.5%
30−35
−35.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
+25%
20−22
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+13%
21−24
−13%
Far Cry New Dawn 28
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−3.1%
65−70
+3.1%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−3.8%
55−60
+3.8%
Metro Exodus 33
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 29
+3.6%
27−30
−3.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−1.6%
60−65
+1.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
−11.1%
20−22
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
−21.1%
21−24
+21.1%
Forza Horizon 4 36
−83.3%
65−70
+83.3%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−3.8%
55−60
+3.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+17.6%
17
−17.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−1.6%
60−65
+1.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 25
−12%
27−30
+12%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−7.3%
40−45
+7.3%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−5%
60−65
+5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−7.5%
40−45
+7.5%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Pro 560X and GTX 780M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780M is 59% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 780M is 3% faster in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 560X is 108% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 780M is 83% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 560X is ahead in 15 tests (21%)
  • GTX 780M is ahead in 37 tests (51%)
  • there's a draw in 20 tests (28%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.54 9.86
Recency 16 July 2018 11 May 2013
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 122 Watt

Pro 560X has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 62.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 780M, on the other hand, has a 3.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560X and GeForce GTX 780M.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 780M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro 560X
Radeon Pro 560X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
GeForce GTX 780M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 185 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 109 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.