Radeon HD 7560D vs R9 295X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 and Radeon HD 7560D, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 295X2
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 500 Watt
20.80
+1844%

R9 295X2 outperforms HD 7560D by a whopping 1844% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2931119
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.140.08
Power efficiency3.171.26
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code nameVesuviusDevastator Lite
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 April 2014 (11 years ago)2 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 $101

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 295X2 has 2575% better value for money than HD 7560D.

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores2816 ×2256
Core clock speedno data760 MHz
Boost clock speed1018 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)500 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate179.2 ×212.16
Floating-point processing power5.733 TFLOPS ×20.3891 TFLOPS
ROPs64 ×28
TMUs176 ×216

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).

Bus supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16IGP
Length307 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2 x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GB ×2System Shared
Memory bus width512 Bit ×2System Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth640 GB/s ×2no data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+N/A

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.

R9 295X2 20.80
+1844%
HD 7560D 1.07

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.

R9 295X2 8714
+1836%
HD 7560D 450

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.

R9 295X2 21197
+2580%
HD 7560D 791

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 HD300−350
+1567%
18
−1567%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00
+12.3%
5.61
−12.3%
  • R9 295X2 has 12% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
God of War 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
God of War 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45
+0%
45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
God of War 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
God of War 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
God of War 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 295X2 and HD 7560D compete in popular games:

  • R9 295X2 is 1567% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 39 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.80 1.07
Recency 29 April 2014 2 October 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 500 Watt 65 Watt

R9 295X2 has a 1843.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

HD 7560D, on the other hand, has 669.2% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7560D in performance tests.

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 R9 295X2
Radeon R9 295X2
AMD Radeon HD 7560D
Radeon HD 7560D

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 99 votes

Rate Radeon R9 295X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 157 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7560D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 295X2 or Radeon HD 7560D, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.