NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The GeForce GTX 980M and the GeForce GTX 560M represent two distinct mobile graphics generations, separated by several years of architectural evolution. The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between them, yet the surrounding specification data and relative positioning against other GPUs reveal a wide gulf in capability. This analysis explores what the recorded numbers show, why the two chips differ so fundamentally, and which workloads favor each design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The GTX 980M scores 23,832 points, while the GTX 560M records 4,855 points. That translates to a 390.9% advantage for the newer card, meaning the GTX 980M delivers nearly five times the OpenCL compute performance of the GTX 560M. This is not a marginal generational step; it is a leap across two major architecture families.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 980M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5,308. The GTX 560M's average, based solely on its single Geekbench OpenCL result, is 4,855. The gap in average scores is roughly 9% in favor of the GTX 980M, but this figure understates the real difference because the 980M's average includes many other tests while the 560M only has one data point. In the one test where both cards appear, the 980M is overwhelmingly faster.

The GTX 980M also holds a strong position in the database's percentile ranking, sitting at the 31st percentile among all GPUs. The GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile. While both are below the midpoint of the overall GPU population, the 980M's additional benchmark results show it performing well beyond the 560M in raw compute tasks. For context, the 980M's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce 930A (average score 5,317, delta -0.2%), the GeForce 840M (5,322, delta -0.3%), and the GeForce 940M (5,284, delta 0.5%). The 560M's nearest rivals include the GeForce 940MX (4,844, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4,867, delta -0.2%), and the GeForce GTS 450 (4,893, delta -0.8%). This placement shows the 980M competing in a performance tier roughly 10% above the 560M's peer group, even before accounting for the massive OpenCL disparity.

The GTX 980M's individual benchmark results further illustrate its strengths. It scores 7,338 in Passmark G3D, 2,816 in Passmark GPU Compute, 490 in Passmark G2D, and 125 in Passmark DirectX 9. Its DirectX 11 score is 57, DirectX 10 is 35, and DirectX 12 is 31. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns 649 points, while Geekbench Vulkan shows 17,703 points. These figures indicate a card that handles legacy DirectX 9 workloads far better than modern APIs, which is consistent with its 2014 release date. The GTX 560M, by contrast, has no recorded results for any of these tests, so the database cannot confirm how it would perform in those scenarios. What the data does show is that in the single shared workload, the 980M dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural eras. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip, based on Fermi 2.0. The process node tells a similar story: the 980M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the 560M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink alone allows for significantly more transistors in a similar power envelope.

The transistor counts are starkly different. The GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors into a die size of 398 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The GTX 560M contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The 980M has more than four times the transistor count and nearly triple the density, which explains its ability to execute far more work per clock cycle.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The GTX 980M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 1253 MHz, which translates to 5 Gbps effective. The GTX 560M offers 1536 MB (1.5 GB) of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 625 MHz, or 2.5 Gbps effective. The 980M delivers more than 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The 980M has eight times the shading units, triple the TMUs, and nearly triple the ROPs. Pixel rate for the 980M is 72.13 GPixel/s, versus 6.200 GPixel/s for the 560M. Texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 24.80 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 3.462 TFLOPS for the 980M, compared to 595.2 GFLOPS for the 560M, a difference of roughly 5.8 times.

API support also differs. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This means the 980M can run modern Vulkan titles, while the 560M is limited to DirectX 11-level features despite its DirectX 12 label. Both cards use the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and are described as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs. The 980M has no power connector requirement listed and is an MXM Module, while the 560M has a TDP of 75 W, also with no power connectors and an MXM Module form factor. The 980M's TDP is not listed in the database, so no direct power comparison can be made.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the GTX 980M is in a different performance class from the GTX 560M. The 390.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single most telling statistic. When one GPU scores nearly five times higher than another in a compute benchmark, the architectural gap is too large to bridge through driver optimization or software tweaks. The GTX 980M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with its 28 nm process and 5,200 million transistors, simply has far more resources to bring to bear.

For users considering these cards, the choice depends on workload. The GTX 980M is the obvious pick for any modern gaming, content creation, or compute task. Its 8 GB VRAM, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance make it suitable for higher resolutions and more demanding applications. The GTX 560M, with 1.5 GB VRAM and 595.2 GFLOPS, would struggle with anything beyond older or lightly optimized titles. Its 60 GB/s bandwidth is a bottleneck for texture-heavy scenes.

However, the GTX 560M is not without a niche. Its 75 W TDP, while not directly comparable to the 980M's unlisted power draw, suggests it may be easier to cool and power in slim notebooks. The 980M's end-of-life status and the 560M's end-of-life status mean both are legacy products, but the 560M is from an earlier generation (GeForce 500M vs GeForce 900M), so it likely appears in older, cheaper laptops. For a user running only legacy DirectX 9 games or light productivity apps, the 560M could suffice, but the database shows no scenario where it outperforms the 980M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0, while the GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip on Fermi 2.0. Process nodes are 28 nm versus 40 nm. Transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 1,170 million. Die sizes are 398 mm² versus 238 mm². Transistor density is 13.1M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm².

Memory differs in size, bus width, and bandwidth. The 980M has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 560M has 1536 MB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources: shading units are 1,536 versus 192, TMUs are 96 versus 32, and ROPs are 64 versus 24. Pixel rates are 72.13 GPixel/s versus 6.200 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 108.2 GTexel/s versus 24.80 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.462 TFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS.

API support differs in DirectX version (12_1 vs 11_0) and Vulkan support (1.4 vs none). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 560M has a listed TDP of 75 W, while the 980M has no TDP in the database. Both use MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for both.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980M than the GTX 560M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23,832 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 560M scores 4,855. That is a 390.9% advantage for the 980M.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from its 8 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The GTX 560M has 60.00 GB/s from 1536 MB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 980M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GTX 980M has 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GTX 560M has 4.9 million per square millimeter. The 980M is fabricated on 28 nm, the 560M on 40 nm.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308 across all recorded tests. The GTX 560M has an average score of 4,855 from its single OpenCL result.

Q: How do the FP32 performances compare?

A: The GTX 980M delivers 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 560M delivers 595.2 GFLOPS. The 980M is roughly 5.8 times more powerful in this metric.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M wins in every category where data exists. Its 390.9% OpenCL lead is the most significant victory. It also wins on memory size, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance. For any compute-heavy task, whether it is OpenCL acceleration, modern DirectX 12 gaming, or Vulkan titles, the 980M is the superior choice. Its 3.462 TFLOPS and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth place it in a completely different tier.

The GTX 560M has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only listed advantage is a lower TDP of 75 W, which the database does not compare against the 980M since the 980M's TDP is absent. The 560M's smaller die size and lower transistor count may also imply lower manufacturing costs historically, but the database does not include pricing. For users with very light workloads, such as 2D desktop use or older DirectX 9 titles, the 560M could be adequate, but the data does not show it winning any test.

The GTX 980M's percentile ranking at 31% among all GPUs, compared to the 560M's 28%, confirms that even within the broader GPU landscape, the 980M holds a higher relative position. The 980M's nearest rivals, such as the GeForce 940M with an average score of 5,284, are all within a few percentage points of its 5,308 average. The 560M's nearest rivals, including the GeForce GTS 450 at 4,893, sit roughly 10% lower. This clustering shows that the 980M belongs to a performance tier that the 560M cannot reach.

In practical terms, the 980M is the card to pick for gaming at higher settings, for rendering, or for any application that can use its 8 GB VRAM and Vulkan support. The 560M is limited to basic tasks and legacy software. The database records no test where the 560M comes close to the 980M, and the single head-to-head result leaves no doubt about which GPU is more capable.