GeForce GTX 560M vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GTX 560M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GTX 560M by a whopping 207% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 443 | 743 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | N12E-GS |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 30 May 2011 (13 years ago) |
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 | 96 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 775 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.80 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 0.5952 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
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 | DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | Up to 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 60 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 data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 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 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.
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 | 110−120
+189%
| 38
−189%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+146%
|
12−14
−146%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+146%
|
12−14
−146%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GTX 560M compete in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 189% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 29 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.03 | 3.27 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 30 May 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 40 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has a 206.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560M in performance tests.
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.
