AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and AMD Radeon Pro 560X in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9,663 for the Radeon Pro 560X, a delta of 671.4%. This is the largest single benchmark difference recorded between the two.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has an average benchmark score of 17,789, placing it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X averages 15,082, which sits at the 57th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card in the database?

A: For the Quadro RTX 4000, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.7% higher average score), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.9% higher), AMD Radeon 780M (1.1% higher), and AMD Radeon Pro 560 (1.4% higher). For the Radeon Pro 560X, the closest is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (0.1% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.6% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.8% lower), and AMD Radeon 680M (1.2% lower).

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 416.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 560X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 94.08 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs. The Radeon Pro 560X has 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. The Quadro also has 64 ROPs versus 16 for the Radeon.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 560X support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 560X has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The Quadro RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded head-to-head benchmarks cover two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins outright, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons.

For compute workloads exposed through OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 4000 delivers a score of 74,540. That places it far beyond the Radeon Pro 560X's 9,663, a margin of 671.4%. This suggests the Quadro is the clear choice for OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or data processing tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU compute.

In Vulkan, the same pattern holds. The Quadro RTX 4000 scores 78,844 versus 16,819 for the Radeon Pro 560X, a 368.8% advantage. Vulkan is often used in game engines and real-time graphics applications, and the Quadro's lead here is substantial.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X does have one benchmark in the database that the Quadro lacks: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 18,763. However, no comparable Metal result exists for the Quadro, so this cannot be considered a direct win.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the only viable option between the two. The Radeon Pro 560X is a low-power integrated-style part (75 W, IGP slot width) designed for portable systems, and its performance profile reflects that positioning. The data shows no scenario where the Radeon wins a shared benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU104 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The architecture includes dedicated hardware for ray tracing (36 RT cores) and AI acceleration (288 tensor cores), which are absent from the AMD part.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The GCN architecture predates the dedicated RT and tensor hardware found in Turing, so the Radeon relies entirely on traditional shader compute.

The generation labels differ: the Quadro is part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, while the Radeon belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series). The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The Radeon has no listed predecessor or successor.

The compute capabilities reflect the architectural gap. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The difference in DirectX feature level and Vulkan version points to newer API support on the NVIDIA side.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. These are not just capacity differences; the memory type and bus width drive the huge bandwidth gap (416.0 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

Process and die: The Quadro RTX 4000 uses a 12 nm process with a 545 mm² die and 13,600 million transistors. The Radeon Pro 560X uses 14 nm, a 123 mm² die, and 3,000 million transistors. Transistor density is similar (25.0M vs 24.4M per mm²), but the absolute scale is very different.

Clocks: The Quadro has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. The Radeon has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) for the Radeon.

Memory: 8 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB GDDR5. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is 416.0 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s.

Compute units: The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Radeon has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro also has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores; the Radeon has none.

Pixel and texture rates: The Quadro achieves 98.88 GPixel/s and 222.5 GTexel/s. The Radeon achieves 16.06 GPixel/s and 64.26 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16: The Quadro delivers 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Radeon delivers 2.056 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.056 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio).

Power and physical: The Quadro has a 160 W TDP, is single-slot, uses a 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The Radeon has a 75 W TDP, is IGP form factor, and uses no power connectors. The Quadro is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall; the Radeon has no dimensions listed.

Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon.

Display outputs: The Quadro has 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The Radeon's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Release date: The Quadro launched on 2018-11-12; the Radeon launched on 2018-07-15. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 899 USD; the Radeon has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmarks between these GPUs, and the results are lopsided.

Geekbench OpenCL: The Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540. The Radeon Pro 560X scores 9,663. The delta is 671.4% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the largest relative gap in any comparison involving these two cards. OpenCL performance is critical for cross-platform compute workloads, and the Quadro's advantage here is roughly an order of magnitude.

Geekbench Vulkan: The Quadro scores 78,844. The Radeon scores 16,819. The delta is 368.8%. While smaller than the OpenCL gap, it is still a massive margin. Vulkan is used in modern game engines and real-time graphics, and the Quadro's newer architecture with dedicated RT and tensor hardware likely contributes to this result.

The Quadro wins both recorded head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The Radeon Pro 560X has no wins in shared benchmarks.

For context, the Quadro's average score of 17,789 sits just above its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7790, which averages 17,666 (0.7% higher). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is 0.9% higher, the AMD Radeon 780M is 1.1% higher, and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 is 1.4% higher. This means the Quadro performs at a level comparable to entry-level modern desktop GPUs, despite being a workstation part from 2018.

The Radeon Pro 560X, with an average of 15,082, is closely matched with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.6% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.8% lower), and the AMD Radeon 680M (1.2% lower). Its performance sits in the range of older mid-range desktop cards, which aligns with its low-power mobile-oriented design.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap: the Quadro is at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon is at the 57th. The difference is not enormous in percentile terms, but the raw benchmark scores show a wide chasm in compute capability. In practical terms, the Quadro RTX 4000 is designed for professional workloads that demand high throughput, while the Radeon Pro 560X targets portability and modest graphics needs. The data supports that distinction clearly.