Radeon HD 5850 vs Pro 560X
Aggregated performance score
Pro 560X outperforms HD 5850 by 85% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 429 | 584 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 14.36 | 0.79 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Cypress |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (6 years ago) | 30 September 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $299 |
| Current price | $133 | $120 (0.4x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro 560X has 1718% better value for money than ATI HD 5850.
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 | 1024 | 1440 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 151 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 52.20 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 2,088.0 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon Pro 560X and Radeon HD 5850 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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.
Pro 560X outperforms HD 5850 by 85% 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%
Pro 560X outperforms HD 5850 by 85% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Pro 560X outperforms HD 5850 by 123% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 100−110
+69.5%
| 59
−69.5%
|
| Full HD | 41
−39%
| 57
+39%
|
| 1440p | 40
+90.5%
| 21−24
−90.5%
|
| 4K | 17
+88.9%
| 9−10
−88.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 31
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+187%
|
14−16
−187%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 39
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+236%
|
10−12
−236%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 36
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+212%
|
16−18
−212%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+138%
|
12−14
−138%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+140%
|
14−16
−140%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 26
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 31
+182%
|
10−12
−182%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 25
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+209%
|
10−12
−209%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+120%
|
14−16
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+182%
|
10−12
−182%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
This is how Pro 560X and ATI HD 5850 compete in popular games:
- Pro 560X is 69.5% faster than ATI HD 5850 in 900p
- ATI HD 5850 is 39% faster than Pro 560X in 1080p
- Pro 560X is 90.5% faster than ATI HD 5850 in 1440p
- Pro 560X is 88.9% faster than ATI HD 5850 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 560X is 1400% faster than the ATI HD 5850.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 560X is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 9.50 | 5.13 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 30 September 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 151 Watt |
The Radeon Pro 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 5850 is a desktop one.
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.
