AMD Radeon Pro 5300 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, though modest, advantage for the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A in the two tests where direct head-to-head comparisons exist. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 39,780 against the AMD Radeon Pro 5300’s 38,747, a 2.6% lead for the NVIDIA GPU. The margin widens slightly in Geekbench Vulkan, where the MX570 A posts 37,601 versus the Radeon Pro 5300’s 35,793 — a 4.8% differential. The NVIDIA GPU wins both contested benchmarks, taking a 2-0 head-to-head sweep.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the two GPUs land close together. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40,870 across its three benchmark runs, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A averages 38,691 across two runs. That places the AMD part in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs and the NVIDIA part in the 81st percentile — effectively neck-and-neck in overall standing.

The nearest-rival data puts these scores in context. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300’s average sits 0.8% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti’s 41,187, and 1.2% above the RTX 5070’s 40,377. It also edges the AMD Radeon Pro 580 by 1.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 by 2.0%. For the NVIDIA MX570 A, the average mirrors the AMD Radeon Pro 580X almost exactly — a 0% delta — and sits 0.9% above the RTX 5080 Mobile and 1.0% above the standard MX570. The only rival ahead of it in the listed set is the AMD Radeon Pro 575X, which leads by 1.1%.

The Vulkan result is the most telling single data point. A 4.8% gap in that API suggests the NVIDIA architecture extracts more performance from Vulkan workloads relative to OpenCL, whereas the AMD part’s OpenCL deficit is smaller at only 2.6%. This pattern is consistent with the architectural differences between the two designs — differences that are reflected in their raw specifications and feature sets.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die — a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A uses the GA107SB die fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm node, packing 8,700 million transistors into 200 mm², for a density of 43.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is physically larger, carries more transistors, and achieves slightly higher density despite the older-feeling process node label.

The shading resources differ considerably. The NVIDIA part has 2,048 shading units against AMD’s 1,280, a 60% advantage in raw shader count. However, the AMD GPU fields 80 texture mapping units versus NVIDIA’s 64, and both have 32 ROPs. The AMD part also clocks substantially higher: a 1000 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost versus NVIDIA’s 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. The result is that peak FP32 throughput lands close — 4.224 TFLOPS for AMD versus 4.731 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 12% NVIDIA lead that is far smaller than the shader count gap would suggest.

Memory configuration is another clear divergence. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA MX570 A has only 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, halving the bus width and dropping bandwidth to 96.00 GB/s. That is a 133% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card — a massive difference that likely influences real-world performance in memory-heavy workloads far more than the FP32 gap does. The AMD memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Feature support diverges in ways that matter for modern workloads. The NVIDIA GA107SB includes 16 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, hardware that the AMD Navi 14 lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while AMD lists DirectX 12 (12_1) — a feature-level difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA GPU’s FP16 throughput is 4.731 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas AMD achieves 8.448 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. That means the AMD part is dramatically faster at half-precision math, more than doubling NVIDIA’s FP16 output. This suggests AMD is better suited for workloads that can exploit FP16 compute, while NVIDIA’s advantage lies in its tensor and RT cores.

Power and physical characteristics differ sharply. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has a 85 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA MX570 A sips power at 25 W with no suggested PSU listed. Both are IGP-class cards with no power connectors, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Display outputs differ: AMD lists "No outputs," while NVIDIA lists "Portable Device Dependent" — reflecting their respective intended platforms.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A scores 39,780 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the AMD Radeon Pro 5300’s 38,747 by 2.6%.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 faster in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the NVIDIA part wins both. The AMD card’s highest single score is 48,070 in Geekbench Metal, a test the NVIDIA GPU does not appear in.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 offers 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR6. The NVIDIA MX570 A provides 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR6.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA GA107SB has 8,700 million transistors, while the AMD Navi 14 has 6,400 million. The NVIDIA die is also larger at 200 mm² versus AMD’s 158 mm².

Q: Which GPU has dedicated ray-tracing hardware?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, which includes 16 RT cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has no ray-tracing cores listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 averages 40,870 across three tests, placing in the 82nd percentile. The NVIDIA MX570 A averages 38,691 across two tests, placing in the 81st percentile. The AMD part holds a 5.6% average-score lead, driven largely by its strong Metal result.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In raw compute benchmarks where both GPUs are measured — OpenCL and Vulkan — the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the faster card. Its 2.6% OpenCL and 4.8% Vulkan wins are decisive enough to matter for users who primarily run those APIs. The NVIDIA part also brings ray-tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, making it the more future-proof choice for applications that leverage those features. Its 25 W TDP is dramatically lower than AMD’s 85 W, which is a significant advantage in thermally constrained or battery-powered systems.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 should not be dismissed. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the NVIDIA card’s 2 GB and 96.00 GB/s — a 133% bandwidth advantage that will dominate memory-bound workloads. The AMD card also doubles NVIDIA’s FP16 throughput at 8.448 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS, making it attractive for compute tasks that use half-precision arithmetic. Its average benchmark score is higher overall, thanks to a strong 48,070 Metal score that the NVIDIA part cannot match if the target platform uses Metal.

The choice comes down to workload and platform. For Vulkan-intensive applications, ray tracing, or low-power mobile designs, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the better pick. For memory-hungry compute, FP16-heavy tasks, or Metal-based ecosystems, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 offers capabilities the NVIDIA card lacks. Neither GPU is a clean winner across every metric; the specifications tell a story of two very different design priorities that happen to land at similar overall performance levels.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro 5300 | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A |

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

| Chip | Navi 14 | GA107SB |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 832 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz | 1155 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 80 | 64 |

| RT Cores | — | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | — | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.80 GPixel/s | 36.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 132.0 GTexel/s | 73.92 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.224 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) | 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 25 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | — |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2020-08-03 | 2021-12-16 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 38,747 | 39,780 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 35,793 | 37,601 |

| Geekbench Metal | 48,070 | — |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 40,870 | 38,691 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 82 | 81 |