AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and AMD Radeon Pro 560 represent two very different generations of workstation graphics, separated by process technology, architectural design, and intended use case. While both cards share the same overall performance percentile ranking of 61, the benchmark data reveals a stark contrast in capability, with the Quadro RTX 4000 delivering a massive performance advantage in compute workloads. The Radeon Pro 560, conversely, is a low-power integrated-class part designed for specific portable systems, not a direct competitor in raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two cards is not a matter of nuance; it is a categorical landslide. Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins both available comparisons outright, with zero wins attributed to the AMD Radeon Pro 560. This indicates that in any scenario involving OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the unequivocal choice. The data shows the Quadro is built for demanding professional workloads such as real-time 3D rendering, complex simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute, where its massive shading unit count and dedicated hardware features come into play.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560, in contrast, does not win any of the comparative benchmarks. Its role is not defined by beating the Quadro but by its existence as a specific configuration for portable Apple systems. Its "IGP" slot width and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs confirm it is not a standalone add-in card but a fixed component. Therefore, its "win" is in the niche of providing discrete-class graphics in a compact, power-constrained environment where the 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors are physical requirements. For any user comparing these two on a benchmark database, the question is not where the Radeon wins, but whether it is even applicable to their hardware platform.

FAQ

Q: How significant is the performance gap between the Quadro RTX 4000 and the Radeon Pro 560?

A: The gap is extreme. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74540 against the Radeon Pro 560's 15504, a difference of 380.8%. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the margin is even larger at 385.7%, with scores of 78844 and 16232 respectively.

Q: Are these two cards comparable in terms of average benchmark scores?

A: Despite the massive head-to-head difference, their average benchmark scores are close. The Quadro RTX 4000 has an average score of 17789, while the Radeon Pro 560 has an average of 17551. This is because the Radeon's only benchmarks are its native Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan scores, while the Quadro's average includes other tests like Passmark, which skew the result.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan-based applications?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is vastly superior. Its Vulkan score of 78844 is 385.7% higher than the Radeon Pro 560's score of 16232. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 560 is limited to Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the Radeon Pro 560's primary hardware limitation compared to the Quadro?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 lacks several key hardware features found on the Quadro. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, which are present in the Quadro RTX 4000 with 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. This limits the Radeon's capabilities in ray-traced workflows and AI-accelerated tasks.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 560 have a faster memory interface than the Quadro?

A: No. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses a 256-bit GDDR6 interface with a bandwidth of 416.0 GB/s, while the Radeon Pro 560 uses a 128-bit GDDR5 interface with a bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s. The Quadro has over five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a high-power desktop workstation?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear choice for a desktop workstation. It requires a 450 W suggested power supply, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and is a single-slot card. The Radeon Pro 560 is an integrated part with no power connectors, making it unsuitable for upgradeable desktop systems.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is brief but decisive. The data includes two compute-focused tests, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 74540, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 15504. This yields a delta of 380.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal victory; it reflects a fundamental difference in compute throughput, driven by the Quadro's 2304 shading units compared to the Radeon's 1024, and its 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Radeon's 1.858 TFLOPS.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar story. The Quadro RTX 4000 achieves a score of 78844, while the Radeon Pro 560 manages only 16232. The deltaPct here is 385.7%, indicating the NVIDIA card is nearly five times faster in this API. This substantial lead is consistent with the architectural gap between Turing and GCN 4.0. The Quadro's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 also positions it for modern graphics workloads, while the Radeon Pro 560's support for DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 is a generation behind.

These results are reinforced by the average benchmark score context. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, with deltaPct values of 0.7% and 0.9% respectively. In contrast, the Radeon Pro 560's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 780M and NVIDIA Tesla K40c. This shows that while the Radeon Pro 560 is competitive with other low-power parts, it operates in a completely different performance tier than the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards highlight their divergent design goals. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is a high-performance discrete card based on the TU104 chip, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 uses the smaller Polaris 21 chip. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 416.0 GB/s. The Radeon Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s. This represents a 4x difference in memory size and over 5x in bandwidth.

The core configurations are equally divergent. The Quadro RTX 4000 features 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 560 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 98.88 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and a texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. The compute figures are also stark: the Quadro achieves 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16, while the Radeon manages 1.858 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16.

Power and physical requirements differ completely. The Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W, requiring a 450 W suggested power supply and a single 8-pin connector. It is a single-slot card with dimensions of 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon Pro 560 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no external power connectors, and is classified as an IGP, meaning it has no standalone dimensions. The bus interface also differs, with the Quadro using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Radeon using PCIe 3.0 x8.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is built on the Turing architecture using a 12 nm process node at TSMC, with a massive 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. This complex design allows for the inclusion of 36 dedicated ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores, features that are entirely absent from the Radeon Pro 560. The Turing architecture also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a modern feature set for advanced rendering techniques.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560 is based on the older GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, a fraction of the Quadro's size and complexity. GCN 4.0 lacks dedicated hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations, which means it must handle these tasks via traditional shader compute if at all. Its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_0), and its Vulkan support is 1.3, one version behind the Quadro.

The implications for professional software are significant. The Quadro RTX 4000's tensor cores enable AI denoising and deep learning super sampling, while its RT cores accelerate ray-traced rendering in supported applications. The Radeon Pro 560, without these features, is limited to traditional rasterization and compute tasks. The die size difference, 545 mm² versus 123 mm², encapsulates the performance gulf: the Quadro is a high-end silicon packed with specialized hardware, while the Radeon is a small, efficient chip designed for integrated mobile systems. The transistor density is similar, at 25.0M per mm² for NVIDIA and 24.4M per mm² for AMD, but the sheer scale of the Quadro's silicon is what drives its overwhelming lead in the head-to-head benchmarks.