AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data paints a fascinating picture: the GTX 770, a 2013 desktop card, wins two of three benchmark tests with raw throughput, while the Radeon Pro 560X, a 2018 mobile chip, dominates in one key API. Both cards sit at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, yet their average benchmark scores differ by only 335 points (15082 vs 14747). The GTX 770 carries a 230 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro 560X draws just 75 W as an integrated graphics processor. These are not just different cards; they are different philosophies of what a GPU should be.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic split appears in Geekbench Metal, where the AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 18763 against the GTX 770's 9369. That is a 100.3% advantage — the Radeon doubles the NVIDIA card's Metal output. This result is not close to marginal; it is a complete reversal of expectations for a card with fewer shading units (1024 vs 1536) and one-quarter the ROPs (16 vs 32). The Metal test likely rewards the Polaris 21 chip's GCN 4.0 architecture, which was designed with modern API efficiency in mind. The GTX 770's Kepler architecture, dating to 2013, simply cannot keep pace in this workload.

Flip to Geekbench OpenCL, and the tables turn decisively. The GTX 770 scores 15707, beating the Radeon Pro 560X's 9663 by 38.5%. Here, the NVIDIA card's raw compute resources shine: 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 3.333 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The Radeon Pro 560X manages only 2.056 TFLOPS, and that gap shows in OpenCL's compute-heavy workload. The GTX 770's 256-bit memory bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth also crushes the Radeon's 128-bit bus at 94.08 GB/s, which likely helps in memory-intensive OpenCL kernels.

Geekbench Vulkan produces the closest contest. The GTX 770 wins again, scoring 19166 versus 16819, a 12.2% margin. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern API that should favor the newer architecture. The Radeon Pro 560X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 770 supports only Vulkan 1.2.175. Yet the older card still pulls ahead, suggesting that the GTX 770's sheer hardware resources — more than double the texture fill rate (138.9 GTexel/s vs 64.26 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (34.72 GPixel/s vs 16.06 GPixel/s) — overcome the architectural disadvantage. The head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for NVIDIA, 1 for AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560X averages 15082 points, which is 335 points higher than the GTX 770's 14747. However, both cards occupy the same 57th percentile among all GPUs, and the GTX 770's nearest rival list includes the Radeon Pro 560X at a -2.2% delta, while the Radeon's rival list includes the GTX 770 at -1.2% — indicating they are statistically close overall.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 560X win Metal by such a large margin?

A: The Metal benchmark shows a 100.3% delta in favor of the Radeon Pro 560X. This likely stems from the GCN 4.0 architecture's design for modern APIs on Apple platforms, combined with the card's release in 2018 versus 2013 for the GTX 770. The Radeon's 18763 Metal score versus 9369 for the GTX 770 suggests the NVIDIA card's Kepler architecture was never optimized for this workload.

Q: Is the GTX 770 better in every compute scenario?

A: No. The GTX 770 wins OpenCL by 38.5% and Vulkan by 12.2%, but the Radeon Pro 560X wins Metal by 100.3%. The GTX 770's OpenCL score of 15707 versus 9663 reflects its superior FP32 throughput (3.333 TFLOPS vs 2.056 TFLOPS), but the Radeon's architecture counters in Metal-specific workloads.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 770 has a 256-bit bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro 560X uses a 128-bit bus with 94.08 GB/s. The GTX 770 also has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 4 GB on the Radeon. The GTX 770's memory clock is 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Radeon runs at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The Radeon Pro 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 770 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, despite losing the Vulkan benchmark.

Q: Are these cards comparable in physical requirements?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 560X is an IGP with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, while the GTX 770 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm length requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a 230 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The GTX 770, in contrast, uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die, with a density of only 12.0M per mm². The transistor count difference is modest (3,540M vs 3,000M), but the die size difference is enormous — the GTX 770's die is nearly 2.4 times larger.

The Radeon Pro 560X's GCN 4.0 architecture was designed for efficiency and modern API support. It has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 770's Kepler architecture has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — exactly 1.5 times the shading units, 2 times the TMUs, and 2 times the ROPs. This explains the GTX 770's higher pixel rate (34.72 GPixel/s vs 16.06 GPixel/s) and texture rate (138.9 GTexel/s vs 64.26 GTexel/s).

FP32 throughput tells a similar story: the GTX 770 delivers 3.333 TFLOPS versus 2.056 TFLOPS for the Radeon. However, the Radeon supports FP16 at 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 770 has no FP16 data listed. The GTX 770's memory operates at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) compared to the Radeon's 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective), and the bus width difference (256-bit vs 128-bit) explains the bandwidth gap.

The Radeon Pro 560X is built for mobile integration as an IGP with no slot width and no power connectors. The GTX 770 is a dual-slot desktop card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 770. Display outputs are "portable device dependent" on the Radeon, while the GTX 770 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. Process node: 14 nm (AMD) versus 28 nm (NVIDIA). Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC. Transistors: 3,000 million versus 3,540 million. Die size: 123 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density: 24.4M/mm² versus 12.0M/mm². Base clock: not listed for AMD, 1046 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clock: not listed for AMD, 1085 MHz for NVIDIA. Memory clock: 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) versus 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB. Bus width: 128-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth: 94.08 GB/s versus 224.4 GB/s.

Shading units: 1024 versus 1536. TMUs: 64 versus 128. ROPs: 16 versus 32. Pixel rate: 16.06 GPixel/s versus 34.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 64.26 GTexel/s versus 138.9 GTexel/s. FP32: 2.056 TFLOPS versus 3.333 TFLOPS. FP16: 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1) versus not listed. TDP: 75 W versus 230 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: not listed versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Dimensions: not listed versus 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 38 mm width. DirectX: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0). Vulkan: 1.3 versus 1.2.175. Release date: 2018-07-15 versus 2013-05-29. Predecessor: not listed versus GeForce 600. Successor: not listed versus GeForce 900. Launch MSRP: not listed for the Radeon; 399 USD for the GTX 770.

The Verdict

The data shows two cards with nearly identical overall standing — both at the 57th percentile, with average scores separated by just 335 points. The GTX 770 wins on raw compute metrics across the board: more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, higher clock speeds, more bandwidth, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The Radeon Pro 560X counters with a newer architecture, double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), better API support (Vulkan 1.3, DirectX 12_0), and dramatically lower power requirements (75 W TDP vs 230 W TDP).

The GTX 770's 399 USD launch MSRP (stated once) reflects its original desktop flagship positioning, but its 2013 release date and 28 nm process make it an older design. The Radeon Pro 560X's 2018 release and 14 nm process give it architectural advantages that show most clearly in the Metal benchmark, where it doubles the GTX 770's score. However, in OpenCL and Vulkan, the GTX 770's hardware muscle wins out.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 770 is the stronger choice. For those needing modern API support, lower power consumption, and Metal performance, the Radeon Pro 560X is clearly superior. The GTX 770's 2 GB memory limit is a real constraint in modern workloads, while the Radeon's 4 GB offers more headroom despite lower bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro 560X wins in: Metal workloads (100.3% ahead), memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), API support (Vulkan 1.3, DirectX 12_0), power efficiency (75 W TDP, no power connectors), transistor density (24.4M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²), FP16 support (2.056 TFLOPS 1:1), and portability (IGP form factor). Its 14 nm process and 2018 release date give it modern architectural features that the GTX 770 lacks.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 wins in: OpenCL performance (38.5% ahead), Vulkan performance (12.2% ahead), shading units (1536 vs 1024), TMUs (128 vs 64), ROPs (32 vs 16), pixel rate (34.72 GPixel/s vs 16.06 GPixel/s), texture rate (138.9 GTexel/s vs 64.26 GTexel/s), FP32 throughput (3.333 TFLOPS vs 2.056 TFLOPS), memory bandwidth (224.4 GB/s vs 94.08 GB/s), and bus width (256-bit vs 128-bit). The GTX 770 also has higher memory clocks (1753 MHz vs 1470 MHz) and a wider PCIe interface (x16 vs x8). Its 267 mm dual-slot design with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors indicates a desktop-oriented card built for sustained performance, not efficiency.