AMD Radeon RX 560 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT scores 31,387 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 reaches 101,883 points. That is a delta of -69.2% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro RTX 8000 is roughly 3.2 times faster in raw compute throughput. The margin is nearly identical in the Geekbench Vulkan test: the RX 560 XT scores 36,879, the RTX 8000 scores 122,637, and the delta sits at -69.9%. Across both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the NVIDIA card wins every round, giving it a clean 2-0 record.

The magnitude of these differences is not a marginal edge but a generational chasm. The Quadro RTX 8000 does not merely outperform; it nearly triples the RX 560 XT in both API workloads. For OpenCL, which often scales with raw shader count and memory bandwidth, the RTX 8000's 4608 shading units and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth overwhelm the RX 560 XT's 1792 shading units and 224.0 GB/s. In Vulkan, the delta of -69.9% is almost identical, suggesting the performance gap is consistent across different driver stacks and compute frameworks.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 560 XT actually holds a higher percentile ranking (79th) than the RTX 8000 (74th) despite losing these head-to-head tests. This is because the RX 560 XT's average benchmark score of 34,133 is closer to its closest rivals: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 34,154 (a -0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 34,207 (-0.2%). The RTX 8000's average score of 28,421, by contrast, is dragged down by its PassMark DirectX scores (137 in DirectX 10, 188 in DirectX 11, 79 in DirectX 12, 211 in DirectX 9), which are far lower than its raw compute results. Those low DirectX scores pull its average down, placing it near rivals like the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580, -0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, +1.4%).

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear division: the RTX 8000 wins everywhere that compute and modern graphics matter, while the RX 560 XT has no recorded benchmark win. In the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the RTX 8000 is the sole winner. This suggests that for workloads relying heavily on general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, the RTX 8000 is the dominant choice. Its fp32 throughput of 16.31 TFLOPS versus the RX 560 XT's 4.394 TFLOPS further solidifies this: the RTX 8000 is about 3.7 times faster in raw single-precision math. Additionally, the RTX 8000's fp16 performance of 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is double its fp32 rate, which is a feature the RX 560 XT lacks, as its fp16 output is identical to fp32 at 4.394 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

For the RX 560 XT, the data suggests it exists in a lower performance tier entirely. Its percentile rank of 79th versus the RTX 8000's 74th is misleading; the percentile is computed against all GPUs in the database, and the RX 560 XT's two benchmark scores (31,387 and 36,879) are more consistent than the RTX 8000's varied results. However, consistency does not equal speed. The RX 560 XT's only potential advantage is its lower power draw (150 W versus 260 W) and its smaller physical footprint (241 mm versus 267 mm length), but these are not measured in benchmarks. The database records no test where the RX 560 XT comes out ahead, so the use-case split is one-sided: the RTX 8000 wins all recorded compute scenarios, while the RX 560 XT might suit workloads where its lower power and size are a priority, but no benchmark data confirms this.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The RX 560 XT uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the RTX 8000 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture on a 12nm TSMC process. The transistor counts reflect this: the RX 560 XT packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The RTX 8000 has 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, with a density of 24.7M per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the RTX 8000 has over three times the total transistors, which explains its compute advantage.

Memory is another major differentiator. The RX 560 XT has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s. That is 12 times the memory capacity and 3 times the bandwidth. For large datasets, such as high-resolution textures or massive compute buffers, the RTX 8000 can hold far more data and move it far faster, reducing the need for constant transfers.

Architectural features also differ. The RTX 8000 includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, which are hardware units for ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads. The RX 560 XT has no such cores (they are listed as null in the database). This means the RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 560 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The RTX 8000 also exposes a higher Vulkan API version (1.4 versus 1.3) and a higher OpenGL version (4.6 for both, though the RTX 8000 also supports this level). The RTX 8000's display outputs include 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the RX 560 XT has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 8000's 48 GB memory is a major architectural difference, as it allows for datasets that would not fit in the RX 560 XT's 4 GB.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT has a higher average benchmark score of 34,133, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000's 28,421. This is due to the RTX 8000's low PassMark DirectX scores (e.g., 79 in DirectX 12, 137 in DirectX 10) lowering its average.

Q: What is the biggest recorded performance gap between the two?

A: The largest recorded delta is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro RTX 8000 leads by 69.9%. The RTX 8000 scores 122,637 versus 36,879 for the RX 560 XT.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and how does the bandwidth compare?

A: The RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560 XT has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 560 XT support ray tracing hardware?

A: No, the RX 560 XT has no RT cores listed in the database. The RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores, along with 576 tensor cores.

Q: How close is the RX 560 XT to its nearest rival, the RTX A2000?

A: The RX 560 XT scores 34,133 on average, while the RTX A2000 scores 34,154, a delta of -0.1%. This makes them nearly identical in average performance.

Q: On the head-to-head tests, which GPU wins?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL (101,883 vs 31,387) and Geekbench Vulkan (122,637 vs 36,879).

The Verdict

The recorded data dictates a single verdict for compute workloads. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior performer in every head-to-head test, with a 69.2% lead in OpenCL and a 69.9% lead in Vulkan. Its raw FP32 throughput (16.31 TFLOPS) is 3.7 times that of the RX 560 XT (4.394 TFLOPS), and its memory bandwidth (672.0 GB/s) is 3 times higher. For any user whose primary concern is compute performance, the RTX 8000 is the clear choice.

However, the RX 560 XT is not without a place. Its average benchmark score of 34,133 is higher than the RTX 8000's 28,421, due to the latter's poor DirectX scores. This means that if your workload is dominated by DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12 gaming or legacy applications, the RX 560 XT might actually produce a more consistent result, despite its lower peak compute. But the RTX 8000's DirectX 9 score (211) is still higher than the RX 560 XT's absence of any PassMark scores, so the data is incomplete. For professional compute, the RTX 8000 is unmatched. For general-purpose usage where the average score matters, the RX 560 XT is more balanced. The RTX 8000 is meant for heavy lifting; the RX 560 XT is a smaller, lower-power option with no recorded wins.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 560 XT | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 12 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | 48 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 112 | 288 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | None (null) | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | None (null) | 576 |

| FP32 Performance | 4.394 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 4.394 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Base Clock | 1074 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1226 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| TDP | 150 W | 260 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2019-03-12 | 2018-08-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 9,999 USD |

| Percentile | 79 | 74 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 34,133 | 28,421 |