Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano vs RX 560
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 465 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 91 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.48 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.66 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 October 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1024 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 1156 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | 1247 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | 319.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.611 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 256 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 152 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 1 October 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 250 Watt |
RX 560 has 233.3% lower power consumption.
RX Vega 64 Nano, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
We couldn't decide between Radeon RX 560 and Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
