UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) vs Radeon RX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 with UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H), including specs and performance data.
RX 560 outperforms Graphics 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 526 | 709 |
| Place by popularity | 90 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.48 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.01 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 1024 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.611 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | no data |
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 | no data |
| Length | 170 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 | 35
+106%
| 17
−106%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
+100%
| 30
−100%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+100%
| 12
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.83 | no data |
| 1440p | 1.65 | no data |
| 4K | 4.13 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how RX 560 and UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) compete in popular games:
- RX 560 is 106% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 is 100% faster in 1440p
- RX 560 is 100% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.76 | 4.34 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 11 May 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
RX 560 has a 101.8% higher aggregate performance score.
UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop graphics card while UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
