AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon RX 550X and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the AMD Radeon RX 550X records a score of 9662, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 achieves 9058. The AMD card wins this head-to-head test with a delta of 6.7 percent. That is a meaningful margin in raw compute workloads, placing the RX 550X clearly ahead in OpenCL performance.

When viewed against the broader field of all GPUs in the database, the RX 550X sits at the 49th percentile, while the GTX 560 sits at the 45th percentile. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 10481, derived from two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), whereas the NVIDIA part’s average is 9058, based solely on its OpenCL result. The RX 550X’s Vulkan score of 11299 further underscores its compute advantage, though no comparable Vulkan result exists for the GTX 560.

The margin between the two in OpenCL is consistent with their nearest-rival positioning. The RX 550X’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (average score 10362, delta 1.2 percent) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (average score 10582, delta -1 percent). The GTX 560’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (average score 9022, delta 0.4 percent) and the AMD Radeon 550X (average score 8918, delta 1.6 percent). In both cases, the head-to-head delta of 6.7 percent is larger than the typical gaps between these cards and their nearest neighbors, indicating a real performance tier separation rather than a statistical tie.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the RX 550X delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 560 delivers 1,088.6 GFLOPS. That is roughly an 11 percent advantage in theoretical peak compute, which aligns with the observed 6.7 percent real-world OpenCL lead. The RX 550X also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (1,211.4 GFLOPS), a capability the GTX 560 lacks entirely; the NVIDIA card’s FP16 field is null in the database. This matters for modern workloads that leverage half-precision math.

The pixel and texture rates tell a more nuanced story. The RX 550X has a pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s versus 11.34 GPixel/s for the GTX 560, a 67 percent advantage in fill rate. However, the GTX 560 counters with a texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s for the RX 550X, meaning the NVIDIA card is approximately 20 percent faster at texture operations. This split between fill rate and texture throughput is a defining characteristic of the two architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins in compute-centric scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 9662 versus 9058 gives it a 6.7 percent edge in general-purpose GPU workloads, and its Vulkan score of 11299 indicates strong API-level performance. The FP32 throughput of 1,211.4 GFLOPS exceeds the GTX 560’s 1,088.6 GFLOPS, and the RX 550X’s FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio doubles its potential in half-precision tasks. For applications that rely on shading units and pixel throughput, the RX 550X’s 512 shading units and 16 ROPs, combined with its 18.93 GPixel/s pixel rate, make it the better choice for resolution-heavy rendering.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 wins in texture-bound workloads. Its 56 texture mapping units and 45.36 GTexel/s texture rate surpass the RX 550X’s 32 TMUs and 37.86 GTexel/s. Games and applications that are texture-fetch limited, such as older titles with heavy anisotropic filtering or certain compute kernels that sample textures frequently, would favor the GTX 560. Additionally, the GTX 560’s 256-bit memory bus provides 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 33 percent higher than the RX 550X’s 96.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage can help in scenarios where memory access patterns are broad, despite the GTX 560 having less total memory (1024 MB versus 4 GB).

In terms of API support, the RX 550X is more future-proof: it supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 560 also supports DirectX 12 but only at the 11_0 feature level, and it has no Vulkan support listed in the database. For users running modern Vulkan-based titles or compute frameworks, the RX 550X is the only viable option of the two.

The RX 550X also wins on efficiency and integration. Its 50 W TDP is one-third of the GTX 560’s 150 W, and it requires no external power connectors, relying solely on the PCIe slot. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the RX 550X versus 450 W for the GTX 560. In compact or low-power systems, the RX 550X is clearly the more practical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X has an average benchmark score of 10481, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 has an average of 9058. The RX 550X leads by approximately 15.7 percent.

Q: Does the GTX 560 support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan support for the GTX 560. The RX 550X supports Vulkan 1.3, giving it a clear API advantage for modern cross-platform graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 560 has a 256-bit memory bus and delivers 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550X has a 128-bit bus and delivers 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 560 holds a 33 percent bandwidth advantage, although the RX 550X offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus only 1024 MB on the GTX 560.

Q: How do they compare in FP32 compute performance?

A: The RX 550X achieves 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 560 achieves 1,088.6 GFLOPS. That is an 11.3 percent advantage for the AMD card. The RX 550X also supports FP16 at the same rate (1,211.4 GFLOPS), which the GTX 560 does not support at all.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W and needs two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested power supply of 450 W. The RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and needs only a 250 W power supply.

Q: What is the release date gap between these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 560 was released on 2011-05-16, while the RX 550X was released on 2018-12-15. That is a gap of over seven years, which explains the architectural and feature differences.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 |

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

| Chip | Lexa | GF114 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 336 |

| TMUs | 32 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 11.34 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 45.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,088.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | Not listed |

| Card Length | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Release Date | 2018-12-15 | 2011-05-16 |

The RX 550X is smaller, cooler, and vastly more efficient, while the GTX 560 offers wider memory bandwidth and a higher texture rate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design eras. The RX 550X uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 2,200 million transistors into a compact 103 mm² die. The GTX 560 uses NVIDIA’s Fermi 2.0 architecture on TSMC’s 40 nm process, with 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die. This is a dramatic density difference: the RX 550X achieves 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GTX 560 manages only 5.9 million per square millimeter.

The architectural philosophies diverge sharply. The RX 550X allocates its resources to a large array of 512 shading units paired with 32 texture units and 16 ROPs. This configuration favors parallel compute and pixel throughput. The GTX 560 uses 336 shading units but pairs them with 56 texture units and 32 ROPs, creating a more balanced design with emphasis on texture and raster operations. The GTX 560’s 256-bit memory interface doubles the bus width of the RX 550X’s 128-bit interface, giving it higher bandwidth despite slower memory clocks.

Feature support reflects the seven-year gap. The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 560 supports DirectX 12 only at feature level 11_0, and lacks Vulkan entirely. The RX 550X also has modern display outputs including HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 560 is limited to DVI and mini-HDMI 1.3a. The RX 550X uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, whereas the GTX 560 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 standard.

Power delivery is a stark contrast. The RX 550X is a 50 W part with no external power connectors, drawing everything from the slot. The GTX 560 is a 150 W part requiring two 6-pin connectors. This has practical implications for system compatibility: the RX 550X fits in a 145 mm (5.7 inch) package and needs a 250 W power supply, while the GTX 560 stretches to 210 mm (8.3 inches) and demands a 450 W unit. The RX 550X is also significantly more efficient per transistor, a direct result of the 14 nm process versus 40 nm.

In terms of compute features, the RX 550X doubles as an FP16-capable device, offering 1,211.4 GFLOPS in half-precision workloads. The GTX 560 has no FP16 capability listed. For modern machine learning inference or media processing that leverages half-precision, the RX 550X is functionally superior. The GTX 560’s only clear architectural wins are its wider memory bus and higher texture unit count, which give it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive and texture-heavy workloads. These are legacy strengths, however, and they do not compensate for the lack of modern API support and the much higher power draw.