AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct comparison between the AMD Radeon R9 M375 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,457 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 scores 9,058 points. The result is a 15.4% advantage for the AMD part, which translates into a clear win in the head-to-head tally: one win for the R9 M375, zero for the GTX 560.

Looking at how each GPU sits relative to its own closest competition helps contextualize that raw margin. The R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10,070 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which averages 10,043 points (a 0.3% deficit), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013 points (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959 points (1.1% behind). Notably, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A sits just ahead with an average score of 10,273, giving the R9 M375 a 2% gap to close there.

The GTX 560, by contrast, shows an average benchmark score of 9,058, which places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition scores 9,037 (only 0.2% behind the GTX 560), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 scores 9,022 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,918 (1.6% behind). Just ahead sits the AMD Radeon 890M with 9,210 points, a 1.7% lead over the GTX 560.

The data shows a meaningful performance gap in the OpenCL workload, but it is importantly the two GPUs also differ substantially in age and positioning. The R9 M375 achieves its higher score with a smaller die and fewer transistors, while the GTX 560 relies on a larger, older architecture. The 15.4% delta in the head-to-head test is consistent with the percentile gap: the R9 M375 sits three percentile points higher in the overall distribution.

No Vulkan benchmark was recorded for the GTX 560, so the comparison rests entirely on the OpenCL result. The R9 M375 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,682, but without a corresponding GTX 560 figure, that data point cannot be used for direct comparison. The single recorded head-to-head measurement, however, is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R9 M375 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 by 15.4% in OpenCL compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, also manufactured by TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process node.

The transistor counts reflect the process gap. The R9 M375 packs 1,500 million transistors onto a die size of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 560 carries 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M375 achieves more than double the transistor density, a direct consequence of the newer 28 nm node versus the older 40 nm node.

Memory configurations differ significantly between the two. The R9 M375 comes with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 560 offers 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a substantial memory bandwidth advantage for the GTX 560, more than four times the throughput of the R9 M375, despite the smaller capacity.

The compute resources tell a different story. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M375 carries nearly twice the shading units, while the GTX 560 counters with more TMUs and twice the ROP count. The pixel rate for the R9 M375 is 16.24 GPixel/s, while the GTX 560 achieves 11.34 GPixel/s. In texture rate, the GTX 560 edges ahead at 45.36 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M375.

Floating-point performance, measured as FP32 throughput, favors the AMD part: the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS, while the GTX 560 delivers 1,088.6 GFLOPS. This aligns with the OpenCL benchmark result, where the R9 M375 scored 15.4% higher.

The bus interface also differs: the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 560 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. API support shows the R9 M375 with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 560 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no recorded Vulkan support.

Power characteristics are only recorded for the GTX 560, which carries a TDP of 150 W and requires dual-slot cooling, two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested 450 W power supply. No TDP figure is available for the R9 M375 in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the clear winner in the only directly comparable workload. Its 15.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL suggests stronger general compute performance in OpenCL-based applications. The R9 M375 also shows a higher pixel rate (16.24 GPixel/s versus 11.34 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS), reinforcing its advantage in compute-heavy tasks. Its larger memory capacity of 2 GB versus 1 GB also gives it more headroom for workloads that require larger working sets.

The GTX 560 wins in memory bandwidth, and by a wide margin. Its 128.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than four times the R9 M375's 28.80 GB/s, which can matter in bandwidth-sensitive tasks such as texture-heavy rendering or certain types of data movement. The GTX 560 also has a higher texture rate (45.36 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s) and double the ROP count (32 versus 16), which could benefit rasterization-heavy scenarios even though its overall pixel rate is lower.

The GTX 560 also leads in transistor count and die size, though those are not performance metrics in themselves. Its 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die reflect a more complex physical implementation, while the R9 M375 achieves better results with a more efficient 28 nm design.

In terms of API support, the R9 M375 has Vulkan 1.2.170 support, which the GTX 560 lacks entirely. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the R9 M375 is the only viable option between the two. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6, and both have DirectX 12 support, though the R9 M375's 11_1 feature level is slightly higher than the GTX 560's 11_0.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R9 M375 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 in the recorded OpenCL test by 15.4%, and it also holds the higher overall percentile ranking (48th versus 45th). For users comparing these two specific GPUs, the R9 M375 is the stronger choice on compute performance, pixel rate, FP32 throughput, memory capacity, and API support including Vulkan.

The GTX 560 retains advantages in memory bandwidth, texture rate, and ROP count, but those strengths did not translate into a higher benchmark score in the recorded data. The GTX 560's 128.0 GB/s bandwidth is impressive on paper, but the R9 M375's higher shading unit count and newer architecture proved more effective in the actual OpenCL measurement.

The R9 M375 also benefits from a smaller, denser design: 123 mm² versus 332 mm², with 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter versus 5.9 million. This suggests better manufacturing efficiency, though the database does not record power consumption for the R9 M375 to confirm an efficiency advantage.

For users who require Vulkan support, the decision is settled: the R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 560 has no recorded Vulkan capability. For users prioritizing raw memory bandwidth in specific workloads, the GTX 560's GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus may still hold appeal, but the overall benchmark evidence favors the AMD part.

The GTX 560's launch MSRP was 199 USD. No launch MSRP is recorded for the R9 M375.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,457 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 scores 9,058. This gives the R9 M375 a 15.4% lead.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 560 has a significant advantage: 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The R9 M375 offers 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the GTX 560 support Vulkan?

A: No. The database records no Vulkan support for the GTX 560. The R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, while the GTX 560 has 336 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The R9 M375 achieves 16.24 GPixel/s, compared to 11.34 GPixel/s for the GTX 560.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The R9 M375 is fabricated on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 560 uses a 40 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Chip | Tropo | GF114 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 332 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1800 Mbps effective | 4 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 640 | 336 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.24 GPixel/s | 11.34 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.60 GTexel/s | 45.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,299.2 GFLOPS | 1,088.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not recorded | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2011-05-16 |

| Length | Not recorded | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 199 USD |