GeForce GTX 470 vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile with GeForce GTX 470, including specs and performance data.
RX 560 Mobile outperforms GTX 470 by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 414 | 513 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | 1.28 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 11 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 April 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 560 Mobile has 343% better value for money than GTX 470.
Detailed specifications
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 | 448 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 34.05 |
| Floating-point performance | 1.887 gflops | 1.089 gflops |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 1674 MHz (3348 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 133.9 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 | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 70−75
+34.6%
| 52
−34.6%
|
| Full HD | 42
−59.5%
| 67
+59.5%
|
| 1200p | 70−75
+32.1%
| 53
−32.1%
|
| 4K | 36
+50%
| 24−27
−50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
50−55
−38.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+30.4%
|
45−50
−30.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24
−40.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 65−70
+17.5%
|
55−60
−17.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
50−55
−38.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+30.4%
|
45−50
−30.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24
−40.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 65−70
+17.5%
|
55−60
−17.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
50−55
−38.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+30.4%
|
45−50
−30.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 65−70
+17.5%
|
55−60
−17.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24
−40.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+71%
|
30−35
−71%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+35.3%
|
16−18
−35.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 70−75
+39.2%
|
50−55
−39.2%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+75.9%
|
27−30
−75.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and GTX 470 compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 35% faster in 900p
- GTX 470 is 60% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 32% faster in 1200p
- RX 560 Mobile is 50% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 200% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 470 is 15% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
- GTX 470 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.29 | 8.05 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 12 April 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
RX 560 Mobile has a 40.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 470 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 470 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
