AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon RX 560 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has a higher average benchmark score of 4998, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 560's average of 4569. This places the R7 Graphics in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 560 sits in the 26th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 16472, which is 75.6% higher than the R7 Graphics' score of 4015. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, and the RX 560 wins it decisively.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The R7 Graphics uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The RX 560 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The R7 Graphics was released on February 16, 2014, while the RX 560 launched on April 17, 2017.

Q: What is the power draw difference between them?

A: The R7 Graphics has a TDP of 25 W, while the RX 560 has a TDP of 75 W. The RX 560 requires a suggested PSU of 250 W and does not need external power connectors.

Q: Which API versions do they support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The R7 Graphics supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 560 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The R7 Graphics is built on GCN 2.0, using the Spectre Lite chip, and belongs to the Kaveri generation of integrated graphics. The RX 560 uses GCN 4.0 with the Polaris 21 chip, from the Polaris RX 500 generation. This architectural gap of two full GCN revisions explains most of the performance disparity.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The R7 Graphics uses a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the RX 560 uses a 14 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries. The smaller node allows the RX 560 to pack 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, versus 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die for the R7 Graphics. Transistor density tells the story clearly: 24.4 million transistors per mm² for the RX 560, versus 9.8 million per mm² for the R7 Graphics.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the discrete card. The RX 560 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The R7 Graphics has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel throughput reflects this: the RX 560 achieves 20.40 GPixel/s, while the R7 Graphics manages 5.760 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 81.60 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is a fundamental difference. The R7 Graphics relies on system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, making performance dependent on the host system's RAM. The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The R7 Graphics has no listed clock speeds, only noting memory as system shared.

The RX 560 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 2.611 TFLOPS. The R7 Graphics only lists FP32 at 553.0 GFLOPS. The discrete card also adds a full set of display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the R7 Graphics' outputs are motherboard dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 560 scores 16472, while the R7 Graphics scores 4015. This gives the RX 560 a 75.6% advantage, and it is the sole head-to-head victory recorded in the data.

Beyond that single test, the broader benchmark suite shows a mixed picture. The R7 Graphics has only two benchmarks in the database: Geekbench OpenCL at 4015 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5980. The RX 560 has nine benchmarks, including Metal, OpenCL, and several Passmark tests. Its Passmark G3D score of 3671 and GPU compute score of 1437 indicate strong sustained performance across workloads. DirectX tests show scores of 16 for DirectX 10, 25 for DirectX 11, 21 for DirectX 12, and 57 for DirectX 9. The G2D score of 485 is the only metric where the RX 560 looks modest.

The nearest rival data provides context. The R7 Graphics sits between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4979, 0.4% lower) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, -0.4% higher). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970, 0.6% higher) and trails the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, -0.7% lower). The RX 560's nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, -0.2% lower), Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, 0.2% higher), NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, -1.1% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, -1.3% lower). This clustering suggests the RX 560 competes in a crowded mid-range segment.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | AMD Radeon RX 560 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Generation | GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) | Polaris (RX 500) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 2,410 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 245 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 9.8M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1175 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1275 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.760 GPixel/s | 20.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.28 GTexel/s | 81.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 553.0 GFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2014-02-16 | 2017-04-17 |

| Predecessor | TeraScale 3 IGP | Arctic Islands |

| Successor | GCN 3.0 IGP | Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 99 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The R7 Graphics wins on efficiency and integration. At 25 W TDP, it draws one-third the power of the RX 560's 75 W. It occupies an IGP slot, meaning no extra card space in a chassis, and its bus interface is the integrated IGP path, so there is no PCIe slot consumption. For compact systems or office builds where discrete graphics are unnecessary, this integrated solution is the practical choice. Its lower transistor count and larger die also make it a simpler part to cool passively, though the database does not quantify cooling requirements.

The RX 560 wins on every measurable performance metric in the database. Its OpenCL score is 75.6% higher, and its compute resources dwarf the integrated part. The 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory removes dependency on system RAM, which is critical for consistent frame pacing in games and compute workloads. The RX 560's Passmark G3D score of 3671 and GPU compute score of 1437 show it can handle sustained workloads that would choke the R7 Graphics. Its display outputs cover modern connectivity with HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 Graphics depends entirely on motherboard ports.

The RX 560 also has broader API support with Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170 on the R7 Graphics. For users running modern Vulkan titles, this is a meaningful difference. The RX 560's FP16 support at 1:1 ratio is another advantage for compute tasks that utilize half-precision arithmetic.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 560 is the superior performer. Its 75.6% lead in OpenCL, 2.611 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, and dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 buffer put it in a different performance class. Anyone building a system for gaming, video editing, or GPU compute should choose the RX 560 without hesitation. Its 99 USD launch MSRP, while no longer current, indicates it was positioned as an entry-level discrete card, and the benchmark results confirm it delivers far more than integrated graphics.

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has one clear niche: ultra-low-power integrated builds. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the RX 560's 75 W, and it requires no extra slot or power delivery. For office machines, HTPCs, or legacy systems where the motherboard already provides the GPU, the R7 Graphics is adequate. Its average benchmark score of 4998 actually exceeds the RX 560's 4569, but this is driven by the Vulkan score of 5980, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison. That said, the OpenCL gap is too large to ignore, and the R7 Graphics' reliance on system memory makes its real-world performance unpredictable.

In short: pick the RX 560 for any workload that values graphics throughput, dedicated memory, or modern API support. Pick the R7 Graphics only when power draw and physical footprint are the overriding constraints, and when the workload is light enough that the integrated solution suffices. The benchmark data offers no scenario where the R7 Graphics wins on raw performance, so the decision comes down to system build philosophy rather than GPU capability.