Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile

Place in the ranking	416	254
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.67	no data
Power efficiency	14.19	24.65
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Baffin	TU106
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	5 January 2017 (7 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores	896	2304
Core clock speed	1175 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1275 MHz	1215 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	58.97	175.0
Floating-point processing power	1.887 TFLOPS	5.599 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	56	144
Tensor Cores	no data	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	36

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	large
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	448.0 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
G-SYNC support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
VR Ready	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

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.

RX 560 Mobile 11.29

RTX 3000 Max-Q 21.40
+89.5%

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.

RX 560 Mobile 8329

RTX 3000 Max-Q 17523
+110%

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.

RX 560 Mobile 5738

RTX 3000 Max-Q 13617
+137%

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.

RX 560 Mobile 36528

RTX 3000 Max-Q 66284
+81.5%

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 HD	45 −64.4%	74 +64.4%
1440p	24−27 −91.7%	46 +91.7%
4K	16−18 −93.8%	31 +93.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.22	no data
1440p	4.17	no data
4K	6.25	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

−100%

30−35
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −74.1%	45−50 +74.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 −253%	60 +253%
Battlefield 5	35−40 −94.4%	70−75 +94.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −183%	65 +183%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −100%	30−35 +100%
Far Cry 5	33 −51.5%	50−55 +51.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −83.9%	55−60 +83.9%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −73.3%	130−140 +73.3%
Hitman 3	21−24 −319%	88 +319%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −70%	100−110 +70%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −100%	70−75 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −148%	77 +148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −91.9%	70−75 +91.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 −41.8%	95−100 +41.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −74.1%	45−50 +74.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 −194%	50 +194%
Battlefield 5	35−40 −94.4%	70−75 +94.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −157%	59 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −100%	30−35 +100%
Far Cry 5	28 −78.6%	50−55 +78.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −83.9%	55−60 +83.9%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −73.3%	130−140 +73.3%
Hitman 3	21−24 −214%	66 +214%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −70%	100−110 +70%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −100%	70−75 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −116%	67 +116%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −91.9%	70−75 +91.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −62.1%	45−50 +62.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 −41.8%	95−100 +41.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −74.1%	45−50 +74.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 −159%	44 +159%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −95.7%	45 +95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −100%	30−35 +100%
Far Cry 5	21 −138%	50−55 +138%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −73.3%	130−140 +73.3%
Hitman 3	21−24 −181%	59 +181%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −70%	100−110 +70%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −91.9%	70−75 +91.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 −160%	52 +160%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +103%	33 −103%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

−113%

66
+113%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −86.4%	40−45 +86.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −94.1%	30−35 +94.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 −100%	21−24 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −167%	32 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −92.3%	24−27 +92.3%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −126%	120−130 +126%
Hitman 3	14−16 −78.6%	24−27 +78.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −91.3%	40−45 +91.3%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −165%	45−50 +165%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −127%	24−27 +127%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −76.1%	120−130 +76.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

−147%

47
+147%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −100%	16−18 +100%
Hitman 3	7−8 −243%	24 +243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −118%	110−120 +118%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −130%	21−24 +130%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −278%	34 +278%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −117%	12−14 +117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −280%	19 +280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −107%	27−30 +107%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −178%	24−27 +178%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −200%	12 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

−140%

24
+140%

This is how RX 560 Mobile and RTX 3000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

RTX 3000 Max-Q is 64% faster in 1080p
RTX 3000 Max-Q is 92% faster in 1440p
RTX 3000 Max-Q is 94% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 103% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3000 Max-Q is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 560 Mobile is ahead in 1 test (1%)
RTX 3000 Max-Q is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.29	21.40
Recency	5 January 2017	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	60 Watt

RX 560 Mobile has 9.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 89.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q 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.