GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X

CPU

GPU

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

2011Core: 732 MHz

Buy on Amazon

Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X

2013Boost: 1000 MHz

Buy on Amazon

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X Performance Spectrum

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

4 GB 210

5,200

0.0%

RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU

Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X

3 GB 200

5,248

+0.9%

Radeon R7 260

Radeon RX 550 (móvel)

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($289 MSRP vs $299 MSRP).
✅33.3% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 3 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌2011 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X

2013

Why buy it

✅16.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 3 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2013 hardware with 3 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
3.5% HIGHER MSRP
$299 MSRPvs$289 MSRP

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 16.9% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 0.9% in PassMark G3D (5,248 vs 5,200), so the answer here is pretty clean.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 4 GB vs 3 GB of VRAM. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $10 cheaper on MSRP at $289 vs $299, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 2.5% (18.0 vs 17.6), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X still makes more sense if max raw gaming performance matters more than value.

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 29 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 732 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 210W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,200 points. Launch price was $289.

Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X

The Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,248 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 scores 5,200 and the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X reaches 5,248 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 448 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 2,048 (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X). Raw compute: 1.312 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 4.096 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X).

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
G3D Mark Score	5,200	5,248
Architecture	Fermi 2.0	GCN 1.0
Process Node	40 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	448	2048+357%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.312 TFLOPS	4.096 TFLOPS+212%
ROPs	40+25%	32
TMUs	56	128+129%
L1 Cache	896 KB+75%	512 KB
L2 Cache	640 KB	768 KB+20%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X carries 3 GB. GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 gives you 33.3% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bandwidth: 156 GB/s (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 264 GB/s (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X) — a 69.2% advantage for the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X. Memory bus width is 320-bit on the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 and 384-bit on the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X. L2 Cache: 640 KB (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 768 KB (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X) — the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+33%	3 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	156 GB/s	264 GB/s+69%
Bus Width	320-bit	384-bit+20%
L2 Cache	640 KB	768 KB+20%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (FL 11_0) (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X). OpenGL: 4.2 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
DirectX	12 (FL 11_0)	12 (11_1)
OpenGL	4.2	4.6+10%
Max Displays	3	6+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: UVD 4.0 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X). Decoder: PureVideo VP4 vs UVD 3.2. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4 (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X).

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
Encoder	UVD 4.0	VCE 1.0
Decoder	PureVideo VP4	UVD 3.2
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 draws 210W versus the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X's 200W — a 4.9% difference. The Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 500W (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 275mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 76°C vs 80 C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
TDP	210W	200W-5%
Recommended PSU	550W	500W-9%
Power Connector	2x 6-pin	6-pin + 8-pin
Length	267mm	275mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	76°C-5%	80 C
Perf/Watt	24.8	26.2+6%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 came in at $289, while the Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X launched at $299. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 was 3.3% cheaper ($10 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 18.0 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448) vs 17.6 (Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X) — the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 offers 2.3% better value. The newer card here is Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X (2013 vs 2011).

Feature	GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448	Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X
MSRP	$289-3%	$299
Performance per Dollar	18.0+2%	17.6
Codename	GF110	Tahiti
Release	November 29 2011	October 8 2013
Ranking	#571	#404

Search GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 on Amazon

Search Radeon HD 7970 / R9 280X on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.