AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon RX 560X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture of generational performance: the AMD Radeon 780M wins both recorded head-to-head tests, but the margin of victory is far from uniform. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 780M scores 18,602 against the RX 560X’s 17,020, a delta of -8.5% from the perspective of the older card. That is a solid but not overwhelming lead—roughly 9% faster in a compute-oriented workload. The Vulkan test, however, tells a very different story. The 780M’s score of 33,683 dwarfs the RX 560X’s 20,231, a dramatic -39.9% delta. This means the 780M delivers over 66% more Vulkan performance, a gap that speaks to architectural efficiency as much as raw throughput.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark score, the RX 560X actually edges out the 780M by a small margin: 18,626 versus 17,588. This is a -5.6% delta in favor of the RX 560X. How can the older card win the average but lose both head-to-head tests? The average includes the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result, which only the 780M has, and that score of 480 is clearly a low outlier relative to its other results. The RX 560X has no equivalent low-scoring test dragging its average down. So the aggregate score is somewhat misleading here—it mixes different test suites. The head-to-head results are the more reliable comparison, and they favor the 780M decisively in Vulkan and moderately in OpenCL.

The percentile rankings are close: the RX 560X sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 780M sits at the 61st. This suggests that despite the 780M’s architectural advantages, its overall standing in the database is nearly identical to the RX 560X. The nearest rivals reinforce this parity. The RX 560X’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, which scores 18,685 against its 18,626—a delta of -0.3%. The 780M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 560, scoring 17,551 versus its 17,588, a delta of 0.2%. Both cards are effectively tied with their immediate neighbors, which means the two cards themselves are also effectively tied in overall standing, despite the lopsided Vulkan result.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M wins with a score of 18,602, compared to the RX 560X’s 17,020. This is an 8.5% advantage for the 780M.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The 780M scores 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RX 560X scores 20,231. The delta is -39.9% from the RX 560X’s perspective, meaning the 780M is roughly 66% faster in this test.

Q: Does the RX 560X have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head tests available, the RX 560X wins zero tests, and the 780M wins both. However, the RX 560X has a higher average benchmark score (18,626) than the 780M (17,588), but this is influenced by the 780M’s low 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 480.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall GPU percentile rankings?

A: The RX 560X ranks at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, and the 780M ranks at the 61st. They are effectively in the same performance tier according to the database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card, and how close are they?

A: The RX 560X’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT with an average score of 18,685 (a -0.3% delta). The 780M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 560 with an average score of 17,551 (a 0.2% delta).

Q: Is the 780M’s higher clock speed reflected in its benchmark results?

A: The 780M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz versus the RX 560X’s 1275 MHz, and this contributes to its superior FP32 throughput (8.909 TFLOPS versus 2.611 TFLOPS). The benchmark data confirms this advantage in Vulkan and OpenCL, though the aggregate score is lower due to the 3DMark outlier.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 780M is the stronger performer in compute and graphics workloads, winning both head-to-head tests. Its Vulkan advantage is particularly pronounced at 39.9% over the RX 560X, and its OpenCL lead of 8.5% is respectable. The 780M also offers modern features like 12 ray-tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the RX 560X lacks. For any workload that leverages Vulkan or newer DirectX features, the 780M is the clear choice.

However, the aggregate benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The RX 560X’s average of 18,626 beats the 780M’s 17,588, and its percentile ranking (62nd) is one point higher. This suggests that in legacy or OpenCL-centric workloads, the RX 560X remains competitive, and its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth may offer more consistent performance than the 780M’s system-shared memory, which is dependent on the host system. The RX 560X is also a discrete card with its own cooling and power delivery, making it a more predictable upgrade for an existing desktop.

The choice depends on the use case. If the priority is modern API performance, ray tracing capability, and energy efficiency (15 W TDP versus 75 W), the 780M wins outright. If the priority is a mature, end-of-life discrete card with dedicated video memory and a proven driver stack for older titles, the RX 560X remains a viable option. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific one. For new system builds with current APIs, the 780M is the better bet. For legacy compatibility or systems without a strong CPU to feed shared memory, the RX 560X holds its ground.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The RX 560X is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, while the 780M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. Transistor counts differ dramatically: the 780M’s Phoenix chip contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the RX 560X’s Polaris 21 has only 3,000 million on a 123 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 142.6M per mm² for the 780M versus 24.4M per mm² for the RX 560X.

Clock speeds are also vastly different. The RX 560X has a base clock of 1175 MHz and a boost of 1275 MHz, while the 780M starts at 800 MHz but boosts to 2900 MHz. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the RX 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 780M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width—bandwidth is system-dependent.

The compute units differ in count and capability. The RX 560X has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 780M also includes 12 ray-tracing cores, which the RX 560X lacks. Pixel rate and texture rate favor the 780M: 92.80 GPixel/s versus 20.40 GPixel/s, and 139.2 GTexel/s versus 81.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M versus 2.611 TFLOPS for the RX 560X.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The RX 560X has a 75 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires a 250 W power supply, and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 780M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, has no suggested PSU, and uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 560X, while the 780M is motherboard-dependent. The RX 560X is 170 mm long (6.7 inches); the 780M has no listed dimensions. The RX 560X is end-of-life, released in April 2018; the 780M is active, released in January 2024.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RX 560X uses the GCN 4.0 architecture on the Polaris 21 chip, belonging to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation. The 780M uses RDNA 3.0 on the Phoenix chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. This is a shift from a compute-oriented design (GCN) to a gaming-optimized one (RDNA), which explains the 780M’s superior Vulkan performance despite fewer shading units.

DirectX support reflects this: the RX 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan support also differs, with the 780M supporting version 1.4 versus the RX 560X’s 1.3. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. The 780M’s 12 ray-tracing cores are a hardware feature absent from the RX 560X, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the older card cannot perform.

The 780M’s FP16 performance is 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), matching its FP32, while the RX 560X also has a 1:1 ratio but at 2.611 TFLOPS. This means the 780M has over three times the compute throughput in both precisions. The 780M’s texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s) is 1.7 times that of the RX 560X (81.60 GTexel/s), and its pixel rate (92.80 GPixel/s) is 4.5 times higher (20.40 GPixel/s). These rates are achieved with fewer TMUs (48 vs 64) and more ROPs (32 vs 16), indicating a fundamental redesign in how work is scheduled and executed.

The transistor density difference—142.6M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm²—is a direct result of the process node shift from 14 nm to 4 nm. The 780M’s die is larger (178 mm² vs 123 mm²) but packs over eight times the transistors, enabling the higher clock speeds and additional features like ray tracing. The 780M’s predecessor is listed as "Navi II IGP" and its successor as "Navi III IGP," while the RX 560X’s predecessor is "Polaris" and successor is "Vega," showing they belong to entirely different product lineages within AMD’s portfolio.