AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisive in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, which scores 10,690 points against the AMD FirePro W5170M's 8,140 points. This translates to a 31.3% performance advantage for the NVIDIA card in this compute workload. The GTX 560 Ti sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W5170M lands at the 44th percentile, reflecting a meaningful gap in overall compute capability.

Look at the rival placements to understand the context. The GTX 560 Ti is surrounded by tightly clustered competitors: it trails the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761) by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) by 1.1%, while leading the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) by 0.6% and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582) by 1%. This is a narrow competitive band. The FirePro W5170M, however, sits in a lower tier: it leads the Intel Arc A380 (8,558) by 0.4%, the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462) by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458) by 1.6%, while trailing the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686) by 1.1%. The delta between the two cards in this head-to-head is far larger than any gap within their respective rival clusters.

The single-benchmark nature of this comparison limits the scope, but the margin is substantial. A 31.3% lead in OpenCL compute is not a marginal edge; it is a clear generational and architectural gap in raw throughput. The GTX 560 Ti delivers 1,263.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro W5170M delivers 1,184.0 GFLOPS. Despite the FirePro's 640 shading units versus the GTX 560 Ti's 384, the NVIDIA card's higher clocked architecture and wider memory bus compensate. The GTX 560 Ti also posts higher texture fill rate at 52.67 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s, and higher memory bandwidth at 128.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. The FirePro does counter with a slightly better pixel rate at 14.80 GPixel/s versus 13.17 GPixel/s, but that does not overcome the compute deficit.

For Vulkan, the database records a score for the FirePro W5170M of 9,050, but no corresponding Vulkan result exists for the GTX 560 Ti. This means the NVIDIA card has no recorded Vulkan performance, while the AMD card demonstrates a functional Vulkan 1.2.170 API implementation. That is a notable capability difference, though without a direct comparison, it cannot be quantified as a win for either side in a head-to-head sense.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is faster by a significant margin. It scores 10,690 in Geekbench OpenCL against the AMD FirePro W5170M's 8,140, a 31.3% difference.

Q: How does the GTX 560 Ti compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It sits in a tight cluster. The GTX 560 Ti is 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, 1% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, and 1.1% slower than the AMD Radeon Pro 450.

Q: What about the FirePro W5170M's rival positioning?

A: The FirePro W5170M leads the Intel Arc A380 by 0.4%, the AMD Radeon HD 8870M by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 by 1.6%. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 by 1.1%.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M support Vulkan?

A: Yes. The database shows a Vulkan score of 9,050 for the FirePro W5170M and lists Vulkan 1.2.170 as a supported API. The GTX 560 Ti has no recorded Vulkan score or Vulkan API entry.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti has 384. Despite this, the GTX 560 Ti achieves higher FP32 throughput at 1,263.4 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 560 Ti has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 128.3 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti wins decisively in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 31.3% lead over the FirePro W5170M in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest margin recorded in this comparison. The GTX 560 Ti also holds advantages in texture rate (52.67 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s), memory bandwidth (128.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), and FP32 compute (1,263.4 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS). If the workload is compute-heavy, particularly OpenCL-based, the GTX 560 Ti is the clear choice.

The AMD FirePro W5170M wins where API support and memory capacity matter. It offers Vulkan 1.2.170 support with a recorded score of 9,050, something the GTX 560 Ti lacks entirely. It also carries twice the memory at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which can matter for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures, even if the bus width is narrower. The FirePro's pixel rate, at 14.80 GPixel/s, edges out the GTX 560 Ti's 13.17 GPixel/s, suggesting a slight advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Additionally, the FirePro's mobile MXM form factor with no power connectors makes it suitable for portable workstations, whereas the GTX 560 Ti requires a dual-slot footprint with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification. The GTX 560 Ti uses a 40 nm process node, while the FirePro W5170M uses 28 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ: the GTX 560 Ti packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the FirePro W5170M has 1,500 million on a much smaller 123 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story of process efficiency: the FirePro achieves 12.2M transistors per mm², more than double the GTX 560 Ti's 5.9M per mm².

Clock speeds are recorded only for the FirePro W5170M, with a base of 900 MHz and boost of 925 MHz. The GTX 560 Ti's base and boost clocks are not listed in the database, but its memory clock is 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the FirePro's memory clock is 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory configuration differs: the GTX 560 Ti has 1 GB on a 256-bit bus for 128.3 GB/s bandwidth; the FirePro has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus for 72.00 GB/s. Shading units favor AMD at 640 versus 384, but texture mapping units favor NVIDIA at 64 versus 40, and ROPs favor NVIDIA at 32 versus 16.

Power and physical specs are starkly different. The GTX 560 Ti has a TDP of 170 W, is dual-slot, uses 2x 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The FirePro W5170M has no recorded TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The GTX 560 Ti measures 229 mm in length (9 inches) and uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0) and has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 560 Ti offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the FirePro is portable-device-dependent.

API support shows differences in DirectX and Vulkan. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 560 Ti is listed as 12 (11_0) while the FirePro is 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan is supported only by the FirePro (1.2.170); the GTX 560 Ti has no Vulkan entry. Release dates differ by over three years: the GTX 560 Ti launched on January 24, 2011, while the FirePro W5170M launched on August 24, 2014. The GTX 560 Ti has a recorded launch MSRP of 249 USD; the FirePro has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, part of the GeForce 500 generation. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies. Fermi 2.0 is a refined version of NVIDIA's earlier Fermi architecture, optimized for high clock speeds and shader throughput. GCN 1.0 (Graphics Core Next) is AMD's unified shader architecture designed for compute-heavy workloads and scalability.

The process node difference is critical: 40 nm for Fermi 2.0 versus 28 nm for GCN 1.0. The smaller node allows the FirePro to fit 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the GTX 560 Ti needs 332 mm² for its 1,950 million transistors. This gives the FirePro a transistor density of 12.2M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 560 Ti. The architectural implications are clear: the GTX 560 Ti uses a larger, hotter chip to achieve its performance, while the FirePro is more efficient per square millimeter.

The shading unit counts reflect divergent designs. The GTX 560 Ti has 384 shading units paired with 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs. The FirePro has 640 shading units with 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This suggests the GTX 560 Ti is tuned for texture-heavy and fill-rate-heavy rendering, while the FirePro leans toward compute-parallel workloads. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The FP32 output tells the real story: the GTX 560 Ti achieves 1,263.4 GFLOPS despite fewer shading units, while the FirePro manages 1,184.0 GFLOPS from its larger shader array. The GTX 560 Ti's higher clock rates and wider memory interface compensate for the shader count disadvantage.

The GTX 560 Ti is a desktop part from 2011, with a 170 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, and external power requirements. The FirePro W5170M is a mobile workstation part from 2014, designed as an MXM module with no power connectors, indicating it draws power from the host laptop. The GTX 560 Ti's predecessor is the GeForce 400 series and its successor is the GeForce 600 series. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. Both are marked as end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti as the stronger compute performer. Its 31.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is unambiguous, and it also wins on texture rate, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the GTX 560 Ti is the better choice by a wide margin. The GTX 560 Ti also holds a higher percentile rank (49th versus 44th), reinforcing its position in the overall GPU landscape.

The AMD FirePro W5170M has specific advantages that matter in particular contexts. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 with a recorded score of 9,050, which the GTX 560 Ti cannot match because it has no Vulkan support at all. It has 2 GB of memory, double the GTX 560 Ti's 1 GB, and a smaller, more power-efficient design suited for mobile platforms. Its 28 nm process and 12.2M transistor density per mm² show a more modern manufacturing approach.

Who should pick which? If the task is OpenCL-heavy compute on a desktop with power to spare, the GTX 560 Ti is the clear winner. It delivers significantly more performance in the only benchmark where both are measured. If the task requires Vulkan support, runs on a mobile workstation with limited power delivery, or needs more than 1 GB of memory, the FirePro W5170M is the only viable option among these two. The GTX 560 Ti cannot be used in a laptop, and the FirePro cannot drive desktop displays directly. For a builder choosing between these two, the decision is less about performance and more about platform: desktop compute favors NVIDIA, mobile workstation flexibility favors AMD.