AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available for these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this single head-to-head matchup, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 emerges victorious with a score of 9,058 against the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's score of 8,851. The resulting delta is a narrow 2.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card. While this is a clear win, the margin is slim enough that it could be considered a statistical tie in real-world variability, but the data nonetheless records a victory for the GTX 560.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the GTX 560's score places it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M265X sits just one percentile lower at 44th. This indicates that both cards occupy a very similar tier of overall performance, clustered around the lower-middle range of the benchmark database. The GTX 560's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (scoring 9,037, a 0.2% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (9,022, 0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, 1.6% ahead). Notably, the AMD Radeon 890M is the only nearby card to outscore the GTX 560, beating it by -1.7% (i.e., the 890M is about 1.7% faster).

For the R9 M265X, its nearest rivals tell a similar story. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8,863, which is a -0.1% difference (meaning the Pro WX 5100 is marginally faster). The AMD Radeon 550X is -0.8% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile trails by 1.2% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 trails by the same 1.2%. This positioning confirms that the R9 M265X is competing in the same performance bracket as the GTX 560, with neither card having a dominant advantage in raw compute throughput.

The head-to-head data only provides one test, but it does establish a baseline: the GTX 560 holds a slight edge in OpenCL compute, yet the difference is so small that other factors—such as driver optimization for specific workloads or thermal behavior—could easily reverse the outcome in practice. The data shows a 1-win record for the GTX 560 and 0 wins for the R9 M265X, but the single test sample size limits the strength of this conclusion.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 is the better choice for users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 2.3% lead over the R9 M265X, while modest, is a measurable advantage. Additionally, the GTX 560's 45th percentile ranking versus the R9 M265X's 44th suggests that it offers slightly better performance relative to the entire GPU landscape. For any workload that relies heavily on general-purpose compute—such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulations, or data processing—the GTX 560 is the data-backed pick.

However, the R9 M265X is not without its own merits. Although it loses the compute benchmark, it brings qualities that the GTX 560 lacks. The R9 M265X features a newer architecture (GCN 1.0 versus Fermi 2.0), a smaller process node (28 nm versus 40 nm), and more than double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB). For users who prioritize memory capacity for larger textures or datasets, or who value the efficiency of a newer manufacturing process, the R9 M265X could be the preferred option despite its lower compute score.

The verdict depends on the use case. For pure compute performance per the benchmark, the GTX 560 wins. For memory capacity and architectural efficiency, the R9 M265X is superior. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a situational one. If the choice is between these two for a new system today, the GTX 560's compute edge and higher percentile ranking make it the safer default, but the R9 M265X's 2 GB frame buffer is a substantial practical advantage for modern gaming titles that exceed 1 GB of VRAM usage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF114 chip, and is part of the GeForce 500 generation. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 1,950 million on a die size of 332 mm². This results in a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². The R9 M265X, conversely, uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, belonging to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. It is built on a more advanced 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller die of 123 mm², yielding a higher transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The process node shrink and density increase are clear indicators of the generational leap between 2011 and 2014.

In terms of compute resources, the GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The R9 M265X counters with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M265X has almost double the shader count, but the GTX 560 has more TMUs and double the ROPs. This disparity explains why the GTX 560 achieves a higher texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s versus the R9 M265X's 25.00 GTexel/s, and a higher pixel rate of 11.34 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s. Despite having fewer shaders, the GTX 560's higher clock speeds and wider memory bus allow it to outpace the R9 M265X in these fill-rate metrics.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The GTX 560 uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M265X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, which halves the bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 560's memory clock is 1000 MHz (or 4 Gbps effective), and the R9 M265X's memory clock is also 1000 MHz (also 4 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus is the limiting factor. The R9 M265X's base clock is 575 MHz with a boost of 625 MHz, whereas the GTX 560's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. Notably, the GTX 560's FP32 performance is 1,088.6 GFLOPS, which is notably higher than the R9 M265X's 800.0 GFLOPS, further confirming its compute advantage.

API support also differs. The GTX 560 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and adds Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M265X's Vulkan support and slightly higher DirectX feature level give it a modern software compatibility edge. The GTX 560 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the R9 M265X uses the newer PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 leads in the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,058 versus the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's 8,851, a 2.3% advantage. Its FP32 performance is also higher at 1,088.6 GFLOPS compared to 800.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M265X have more video memory?

A: Yes, the R9 M265X features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 560 has 1 GB. However, the GTX 560 uses a wider 256-bit bus providing 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the R9 M265X's 128-bit bus at 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The data does not directly measure efficiency, but the R9 M265X uses a smaller 28 nm process node versus the GTX 560's 40 nm node, and the GTX 560 has a listed TDP of 150 W requiring a 450 W PSU. The R9 M265X has no TDP listed.

Q: Which GPU has better modern API support?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 560 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in terms of rasterization and texturing?

A: The GTX 560 has higher texture and pixel rates: 45.36 GTexel/s and 11.34 GPixel/s respectively, versus the R9 M265X's 25.00 GTexel/s and 10.00 GPixel/s. This is due to the GTX 560 having more TMUs (56 vs 40) and ROPs (32 vs 16).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as End-of-life in the data. The GTX 560 was released on 2011-05-16, while the R9 M265X was released on 2014-03-20.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 wins decisively in compute-heavy tasks. Its OpenCL score of 9,058 is 2.3% higher than the R9 M265X, and its FP32 throughput of 1,088.6 GFLOPS is over 36% higher (calculated from 1088.6 vs 800.0). It also excels in fill-rate-bound scenarios, offering 45.36 GTexel/s texture fill and 11.34 GPixel/s pixel fill, which are 81% and 13% higher respectively than the R9 M265X's figures. This makes the GTX 560 better suited for tasks that stress texture sampling or pixel shading at high resolutions, despite its smaller memory pool. The wider 256-bit memory bus also provides 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is double the R9 M265X's 64.00 GB/s, giving the GTX 560 an edge in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins on memory capacity and modern feature support. Its 2 GB frame buffer is twice the size of the GTX 560's 1 GB, which is critical for games or applications that exceed 1 GB of VRAM usage. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), whereas the GTX 560 lacks Vulkan and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The R9 M265X's 28 nm process node is more modern than the 40 nm node of the GTX 560, which typically implies better thermal and power characteristics (though TDP is not listed for the R9 M265X). Additionally, its higher shader count of 640 units could benefit certain parallel compute workloads that are not captured by the OpenCL benchmark, even though it loses in that test overall.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 | AMD Radeon R9 M265X |

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

| Chip | GF114 | Venus |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 500 | Gem System (R9 M200) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 625 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 640 |

| TMUs | 56 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.34 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.36 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,088.6 GFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2011-05-16 | 2014-03-20 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | Not listed |