AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two GPUs into clearly different performance territories. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A wins both recorded head-to-head tests, but the margin tells very different stories about what each card is built for.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX570 A posts 39,780 against the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971. That is a 42.2% lead, a massive gap in raw compute throughput. OpenCL workloads tend to stress general-purpose shader performance, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency. The MX570 A's 4.731 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, combined with its 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, clearly outperforms the FirePro's 7.987 TFLOPS and 512.0 GB/s in this specific test. The interesting implication is that raw theoretical specifications do not always translate to real-world OpenCL scores, and the MX570 A's newer architecture appears far more efficient in this workload.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin shrinks dramatically. The MX570 A scores 37,601, while the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109. That is only a 1.3% difference, essentially a statistical tie. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose hardware capabilities more directly. The FirePro S9300 X2, despite being from 2016, holds its own here. This suggests that the older GCN 3.0 architecture still executes Vulkan workloads competently, and the 4096 shading units on the FirePro provide substantial parallel throughput that narrows the gap.

The database records 2 wins for the MX570 A and 0 wins for the FirePro S9300 X2. However, the nature of those wins matters. The MX570 A dominates in OpenCL but barely edges ahead in Vulkan. For users prioritizing compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the MX570 A is the clear choice. For Vulkan-centric workloads, the two are nearly interchangeable based on these measurements.

The percentile rankings reinforce this divide. The MX570 A sits at the 81st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th percentile. The average benchmark score for the MX570 A is 38,691, compared to 32,540 for the FirePro. That 6,151-point gap in averages reflects the OpenCL disparity more than the Vulkan near-tie.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has an average benchmark score of 38,691, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540. That places the MX570 A in the 81st percentile of all GPUs and the FirePro in the 77th percentile.

Q: How close is the Vulkan performance between the two?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan scores are 37,601 for the MX570 A and 37,109 for the FirePro S9300 X2. The delta is only 1.3%, which indicates nearly equivalent Vulkan performance despite the significant architectural differences.

Q: What explains the large OpenCL gap?

A: The MX570 A scores 39,780 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 27,971 for the FirePro S9300 X2, a 42.2% difference. The MX570 A uses a newer 8 nm process with Ampere architecture, while the FirePro uses 28 nm GCN 3.0. The newer architecture appears to extract far more real-world OpenCL performance from its resources.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card in the database?

A: The MX570 A's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 580X with an average score of 38,706, a 0% delta. The FirePro S9300 X2's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME with 32,601, a -0.2% delta. Both cards sit within 1.1% of their nearest neighbors, suggesting tight competition in their respective segments.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 have any numerical advantage over the MX570 A?

A: Yes, in raw specifications the FirePro S9300 X2 has significantly more memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), a much wider memory bus (4096 bit versus 64 bit), higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), more shading units (4096 versus 2048), and higher FP32 compute (7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS). Yet these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 was released on 2016-03-30, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A was released on 2021-12-16. That is roughly five and a half years of architectural development separating the two, which helps explain the performance efficiency differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most lopsided result in this comparison. The MX570 A scores 39,780, beating the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971 by 42.2%. This is not a marginal win; it is a decisive victory that reshapes how we should interpret the FirePro's impressive specification sheet. The FirePro S9300 X2 packs 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, more than double the MX570 A's 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It also has 512.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s. And yet, in OpenCL, the MX570 A crushes it. The data implies that the Ampere architecture's instruction efficiency, driver optimization, and memory compression techniques more than compensate for the raw hardware deficit.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. Here the MX570 A scores 37,601, and the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109. The 1.3% delta is within measurement noise. Vulkan's lower overhead and more explicit control seem to let the FirePro's massive parallel hardware shine. The FirePro's 4096 shading units, even on an older GCN 3.0 design, can be fed effectively when the API gives developers direct hardware access. This near-tie in Vulkan suggests that for modern graphics workloads using this API, the two cards are functionally equivalent in the database's measurements.

The average benchmark scores confirm the OpenCL outcome as the dominant factor. The MX570 A averages 38,691, which is 18.9% above the FirePro's 32,540. The MX570 A's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at 38,706 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at 38,349 (0.9% delta). The FirePro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME at 32,601 (-0.2% delta) and the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32,388 (0.5% delta). These rival groupings show that each card competes in a different performance tier, with the MX570 A sitting roughly 19% higher in average score.

One notable observation is the FirePro's Vulkan score of 37,109, which is remarkably close to the MX570 A's 37,601 despite the FirePro's much lower OpenCL score. This disparity between the two API tests suggests that the FirePro S9300 X2 is not uniformly slower; its performance depends heavily on the workload characteristics. The MX570 A, by contrast, shows consistent performance across both APIs, with only a 5.5% drop from OpenCL to Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The memory configurations could not be more different. The MX570 A uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. That is 5.33 times the bandwidth and double the capacity. For memory-bound workloads, the FirePro has an enormous theoretical advantage, yet the benchmark data shows it does not convert that into OpenCL wins.

The compute resources also diverge sharply. The MX570 A has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro has exactly double the shading units, four times the TMUs, and double the ROPs. Its FP32 rating of 7.987 TFLOPS is 68.8% higher than the MX570 A's 4.731 TFLOPS. The MX570 A counters with dedicated RT cores (16) and tensor cores (64), features the FirePro lacks entirely.

Power and physical design represent another fundamental split. The MX570 A has a 25 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The suggested power supply for the FirePro is 700 W. The MX570 A's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX570 A has display outputs that are portable device dependent, while the FirePro has no display outputs at all, reflecting its server-focused design. The FirePro's launch MSRP was 5,999 USD, stated once here for reference.

Architecture Differences

The manufacturing processes highlight five years of semiconductor advancement. The MX570 A uses an 8 nm process from Samsung with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The FirePro S9300 X2 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die. Its transistor density is 14.9 million per mm². The MX570 A packs nearly three times the transistor density into one-third the die area, which explains how a 25 W part can compete with a 300 W part.

The architecture generations could not be further apart. The MX570 A uses Ampere, NVIDIA's architecture that introduces hardware ray tracing and tensor cores for AI acceleration. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses GCN 3.0, codenamed Capsaicin, which predates these features. The MX570 A's 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores have no equivalent on the FirePro. This architectural gap manifests in the OpenCL results, where the Ampere design's efficiency and feature set produce a 42.2% advantage.

The FirePro's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale, and its successor is the Radeon Pro GCN. The MX570 A belongs to the GeForce MX (5xx) generation. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status. The FirePro is a server-class card with no display outputs, designed for compute acceleration in data centers. The MX570 A is a mobile graphics solution whose display outputs depend on the portable device it is integrated into.

Memory technology reflects the era of each design. The FirePro uses HBM, a high-bandwidth memory standard that was current-generation in 2016, enabling its 4096-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s throughput. The MX570 A uses GDDR6 on a narrow 64-bit bus, relying on higher clock speeds and memory compression to reach 96.00 GB/s. The FirePro's memory clock is 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the MX570 A's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for most workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the better performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (38,691 versus 32,540), and ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile (81st versus 77th). Its OpenCL victory by 42.2% is the single most decisive data point in this comparison. For users running OpenCL compute tasks, the MX570 A is overwhelmingly the better choice.

However, the Vulkan near-tie at 1.3% delta complicates a blanket recommendation. If the primary workload is Vulkan-based, the FirePro S9300 X2 remains competitive, and its 4 GB of memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth could benefit memory-intensive scenarios that the benchmark tests do not fully capture. The FirePro also offers double the shading units and significantly higher raw FP32 throughput, specifications that might matter in specialized compute contexts outside these two benchmarks.

For a portable or low-power environment, the MX570 A is the only reasonable option. Its 25 W TDP, IGP form factor, and no power connector requirement make it suitable for thin-and-light devices. The FirePro's 300 W TDP, dual-slot size, 2x 8-pin connectors, and 700 W suggested power supply restrict it to desktop server chassis with ample cooling and power delivery.

The database's verdict favors the MX570 A on measured performance, but the FirePro S9300 X2 retains a niche for users who need its massive memory bandwidth, larger memory pool, and raw shading power in Vulkan contexts. The MX570 A is the efficient modern choice that wins on the recorded benchmarks; the FirePro is a legacy server part with theoretical advantages that its older architecture cannot consistently translate into benchmark victories. Pick the MX570 A for general compute and OpenCL workloads, and consider the FirePro only if Vulkan performance and memory capacity are the sole criteria.