GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs Radeon R9 Fury

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce GTX 560 Ti, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.85
+212%

R9 Fury outperforms GTX 560 Ti by a whopping 212% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking222520
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.161.84
Power efficiency6.233.23
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameFijiGF114
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)25 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Fury has 343% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti.

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 cores3584384
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data823 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt170 Watt
Texture fill rate224.052.67
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS1.263 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22464

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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pin2x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1002 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s128.3 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-2.1

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.

R9 Fury 24.85
+212%
GTX 560 Ti 7.96

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 Fury 9555
+212%
GTX 560 Ti 3059

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.

R9 Fury 17543
+337%
GTX 560 Ti 4013

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 Fury 42039
+171%
GTX 560 Ti 15494

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 Fury 14580
+320%
GTX 560 Ti 3470

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

R9 Fury 1691
+205%
GTX 560 Ti 555

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:

900p190−200
+202%
63
−202%
Full HD89
+41.3%
63
−41.3%
1440p97
+223%
30−35
−223%
4K49
+250%
14−16
−250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.17
−56.1%
3.95
+56.1%
1440p5.66
+46.6%
8.30
−46.6%
4K11.20
+58.7%
17.79
−58.7%
  • GTX 560 Ti has 56% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 Fury has 47% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • R9 Fury has 59% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+213%
16−18
−213%
Elden Ring 80−85
+268%
21−24
−268%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+192%
24−27
−192%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+213%
16−18
−213%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+241%
30−35
−241%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+145%
21−24
−145%
Valorant 100−105
+270%
27−30
−270%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+192%
24−27
−192%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+213%
16−18
−213%
Dota 2 85−90
+204%
27−30
−204%
Elden Ring 80−85
+268%
21−24
−268%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+124%
30−35
−124%
Fortnite 120−130
+166%
45−50
−166%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+241%
30−35
−241%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+204%
27−30
−204%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+148%
60−65
−148%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+145%
21−24
−145%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76
+217%
24−27
−217%
Valorant 100−105
+270%
27−30
−270%
World of Tanks 268
+123%
120−130
−123%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+192%
24−27
−192%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+213%
16−18
−213%
Dota 2 130
+364%
27−30
−364%
Far Cry 5 101
+197%
30−35
−197%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+241%
30−35
−241%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+148%
60−65
−148%
Valorant 100−105
+270%
27−30
−270%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
Elden Ring 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+338%
40−45
−338%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
World of Tanks 158
+177%
55−60
−177%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+257%
14−16
−257%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+324%
16−18
−324%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+313%
16−18
−313%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+338%
12−14
−338%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+300%
9−10
−300%
Valorant 65−70
+235%
20−22
−235%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Dota 2 47
+147%
18−20
−147%
Elden Ring 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Grand Theft Auto V 47
+161%
18−20
−161%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+230%
21−24
−230%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+161%
18−20
−161%
World of Tanks 109
+263%
30−33
−263%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Dota 2 102
+437%
18−20
−437%
Far Cry 5 38
+322%
9−10
−322%
Fortnite 35
+338%
8−9
−338%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Valorant 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%

This is how R9 Fury and GTX 560 Ti compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 202% faster in 900p
  • R9 Fury is 41% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 223% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 250% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Fury is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 Fury surpassed GTX 560 Ti in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.85 7.96
Recency 10 July 2015 25 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 170 Watt

R9 Fury has a 212.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 560 Ti, on the other hand, has 61.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti in performance tests.


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 R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti
GeForce GTX 560 Ti

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.


3.8 175 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 831 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 560 Ti 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.