NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A represent two distinct generations of GPU design, and the benchmark data available shows a narrow but decisive victory for the older card. In the sole head-to-head benchmark test, the Geekbench OpenCL score for the GTX 560 Ti is 10,690, while the GTX 950A scores 10,273. This results in a 4.1% delta, placing the GTX 560 Ti as the winner in this comparison. While a 4.1% lead is not substantial, it is a consistent margin that appears across the available data, making the GTX 560 Ti the higher-performing option based strictly on these metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. The GTX 560 Ti achieves a score of 10,690, outpacing the GTX 950A’s 10,273 by a margin of 4.1%. This score places the GTX 560 Ti in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 950A sits at the 48th percentile. The difference is marginal in percentile terms, but the raw score delta is clear.

When examining the nearest rivals for each card, the performance context becomes more nuanced. The GTX 560 Ti’s score of 10,690 is 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) and 1% above the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761) by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) by 1.1%. On the other side, the GTX 950A’s score of 10,273 is 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070), but it falls behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) by 0.9%, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400) by 1.2%, and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481) by 2%.

The data indicates that the GTX 560 Ti holds a slight edge in raw compute throughput, but both cards are clustered within a narrow performance band. The 4.1% difference between them is smaller than the variance seen among their respective nearest rivals, which suggests that real-world application performance could vary depending on workload characteristics. However, based on the single available benchmark, the GTX 560 Ti wins the head-to-head comparison outright, with 1 win and 0 losses.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 560 Ti uses the GF114 chip based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, also built by TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process. This process shrink allows the GTX 950A to pack 1,870 million transistors into a much smaller die size of 148 mm², compared to the GTX 560 Ti’s 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the GTX 950A achieves 12.6 million transistors per mm², more than double the GTX 560 Ti’s 5.9 million per mm².

The compute resources differ significantly in configuration. The GTX 560 Ti has 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 950A, despite being a smaller chip, has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the GTX 950A has nearly 67% more shading units, but the GTX 560 Ti has 60% more TMUs and double the ROPs. The clock speeds also differ: the GTX 950A has a base clock of 993 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the GTX 560 Ti’s clock data is not listed in the available information.

Memory architecture presents a stark contrast. The GTX 560 Ti uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 128.3 GB/s. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a much lower bandwidth of 32.03 GB/s. The effective memory speed is 4 Gbps for the GTX 560 Ti versus 2 Gbps for the GTX 950A. This is a four-fold difference in bandwidth, which is likely to impact performance in memory-intensive workloads despite the GTX 950A’s larger frame buffer.

Feature support also differs. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 950A adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which the GTX 560 Ti lacks. The GTX 560 Ti uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and requires dual-slot cooling with two 6-pin power connectors, drawing 170 W. The GTX 950A uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, is a single-slot MXM module with no power connectors, and draws only 75 W. The GTX 560 Ti has a 229 mm length with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, while the GTX 950A’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the GTX 560 Ti wins in the only direct comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its higher memory bandwidth of 128.3 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s is a significant theoretical advantage, and the larger 256-bit memory bus suggests it is better suited for tasks that require rapid data movement. The higher pixel rate of 13.17 GPixel/s and texture rate of 52.67 GTexel/s also indicate stronger fill-rate capabilities, which could benefit traditional rasterization workloads at lower resolutions.

The GTX 950A, despite losing the compute benchmark, has several architectural advantages that could make it the better choice in specific scenarios. Its 2 GB of memory, double the GTX 560 Ti’s 1 GB, allows for larger textures and datasets to reside locally, which is critical for modern games and applications with high-resolution assets. The 640 shading units versus 384 provide more raw ALU throughput, and the FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS surpasses the GTX 560 Ti’s 1,263.4 GFLOPS. The boost clock of 1124 MHz also indicates higher sustained clock speeds under load.

The GTX 950A’s power efficiency is a major differentiator. With a TDP of 75 W versus 170 W, it consumes less than half the power of the GTX 560 Ti. This makes it suitable for portable devices where thermal and power constraints are tight, as indicated by its MXM module form factor. The GTX 560 Ti, by contrast, is a desktop-oriented dual-slot card requiring a 450 W power supply and two 6-pin connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, overall winner in the GTX 560 Ti, as it holds a 4.1% lead in the only benchmark available and wins the head-to-head comparison 1-0. Its superior memory bandwidth and fill rates make it the stronger candidate for compute-heavy tasks and traditional gaming at the resolutions common during its release era. Users who prioritize raw OpenCL performance and have a desktop chassis with adequate power delivery should choose the GTX 560 Ti.

However, the GTX 950A is not without merit. Its higher FP32 throughput, double the memory capacity, and modern Maxwell architecture with Vulkan support make it a more forward-looking option in terms of feature set. The dramatically lower power draw of 75 W, coupled with the MXM form factor, means it is the only viable choice for mobile or compact systems that cannot accommodate a dual-slot, 170 W card. For users with such power and space constraints, the GTX 950A is the appropriate selection, accepting its 4.1% benchmark deficit in exchange for efficiency and memory capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti scores 10,690, which is 4.1% higher than the GTX 950A’s 10,273.

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

A: The GTX 560 Ti has a memory bandwidth of 128.3 GB/s, while the GTX 950A has 32.03 GB/s. This is a four-fold difference.

Q: How does the transistor density compare?

A: The GTX 950A has a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm², while the GTX 560 Ti has 5.9 million per mm².

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The GTX 560 Ti has a TDP of 170 W, whereas the GTX 950A has a TDP of 75 W.

Q: Does the GTX 950A support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 Ti does not have Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 950A has 640 shading units, compared to 384 on the GTX 560 Ti.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None listed | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 32.03 GB/s |

| Memory Speed | 4 Gbps effective | 2 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 384 | 640 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.17 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.67 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,263.4 GFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 170 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | None listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-01-24 | 2015-03-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 249 USD | None listed |