AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two professional workstation GPUs. The NVIDIA T1000 wins both shared head-to-head tests, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 36.1% advantage and the Vulkan test with a 9.1% edge. Its average benchmark score of 36,289 places it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro 570's average of 33,207 sits at the 78th percentile. The T1000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5300M (0.7% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (0.7% behind), suggesting it competes with much larger desktop parts. The Radeon Pro 570's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile (0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA T550 Mobile (0.1% behind), indicating a tighter, more modern mobile-class competitive set.

For buyers, the choice hinges on workload type. The NVIDIA T1000 is the stronger compute performer in the two tests both cards share, and it achieves this with a 50 W power draw versus the Radeon's 150 W. The T1000's 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is lower than the Radeon's 217.0 GB/s, yet the NVIDIA card still wins decisively in OpenCL and comfortably in Vulkan. This suggests the T1000's architecture extracts more useful work per byte of memory traffic. The Radeon Pro 570, however, has one unique strength: a Geekbench Metal score of 39,945, which is higher than either of the T1000's benchmark scores. For macOS-centric workflows that rely on Metal, the Radeon is the only option of the two that even has a Metal score recorded. The Radeon Pro 570 is explicitly part of the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation, so its integration with Apple systems is a given.

The verdict from the data: the NVIDIA T1000 is the more capable general-purpose workstation GPU, with solid margins in both shared compute APIs. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 is the choice strictly for environments where Metal acceleration matters, since the T1000 has no Metal score listed and the Radeon's Metal result exceeds both T1000 scores. The T1000 also offers a dramatically lower power draw, making it suitable for systems where power is constrained. The Radeon's 150 W draw and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for embedded or integrated scenarios, not traditional expansion-slot installations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 has an average benchmark score of 36,289, which is 9.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 570's average of 33,207.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA T1000 in OpenCL?

A: The T1000 scores 37,704 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Radeon Pro 570's 27,702, a 36.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 570 win any benchmark category?

A: The Radeon Pro 570 has a Geekbench Metal score of 39,945, which is its strongest result and exceeds both of the T1000's recorded scores (37,704 OpenCL and 34,874 Vulkan). However, the T1000 does not have a Metal score listed, so there is no direct head-to-head comparison.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 has a TDP of 50 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 has a TDP of 150 W with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 has a slightly higher transistor density at 24.6 million transistors per mm², compared to the NVIDIA T1000's 23.5 million per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural lineages, and the data reflects distinct design priorities. The NVIDIA T1000 uses the TU117 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 12 nm process. The chip contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This chip holds 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. Despite the AMD card having a physically larger chip with more transistors, the NVIDIA card achieves higher benchmark scores, indicating that Turing's architecture is more efficient per transistor and per square millimeter.

The compute configurations differ markedly. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Radeon Pro 570 has exactly double the shading units at 1,792, double the TMUs at 112, and the same 32 ROPs. This gives the Radeon a higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 3.960 TFLOPS versus the T1000's 2.500 TFLOPS. The texture rate similarly favors the AMD card at 123.8 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. However, the pixel rate tells a different story: the T1000 delivers 44.64 GPixel/s versus the Radeon's 35.36 GPixel/s, despite the AMD card's higher raw compute. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture is more efficient at pixel processing work.

The memory subsystems also differ architecturally. The T1000 uses GDDR6 memory running at 10 Gbps effective over a 128-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The Radeon Pro 570 uses GDDR5 at 6.8 Gbps effective over a 256-bit bus, yielding 217.0 GB/s. The AMD card has 35.6% more memory bandwidth, yet loses in both shared compute benchmarks. This indicates that the NVIDIA T1000's memory controller and cache hierarchy extract more effective throughput from less raw bandwidth. Both cards support PCIe 3.0 x16, and both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, though the T1000 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the Radeon's 1.3, and DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the fact pack. The process nodes differ: the T1000 is on 12 nm at TSMC, while the Radeon Pro 570 is on 14 nm at GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts differ at 4,700 million versus 5,700 million, as do die sizes at 200 mm² versus 232 mm². The transistor density is comparable at 23.5M per mm² versus 24.6M per mm². Clock speeds differ significantly: the T1000 runs at 1065 MHz base and 1395 MHz boost, while the Radeon Pro 570 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1105 MHz boost. The memory clocks differ as well, with the T1000 at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) and the Radeon at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations differ in type and bus width but not capacity: both have 4 GB, but the T1000 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Radeon uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the AMD card at 217.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. The compute units differ as described: 896 versus 1,792 shading units, 56 versus 112 TMUs, and equal 32 ROPs. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 44.64 GPixel/s versus 35.36 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors AMD at 123.8 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. FP32 performance favors AMD at 3.960 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance differs in ratio: the T1000 achieves 5.000 TFLOPS at 2:1, while the Radeon achieves 3.960 TFLOPS at 1:1.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The T1000 has a 50 W TDP and is single-slot, while the Radeon Pro 570 has a 150 W TDP and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). The T1000 has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the Radeon has none listed. Neither card requires power connectors. The T1000 is 156 mm (6.1 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, while the Radeon has no dimensions listed. Display outputs differ: the T1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Radeon's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Release dates differ by roughly four years: the T1000 launched in May 2021, while the Radeon Pro 570 launched in June 2017. Both are end-of-life products. The T1000 has a predecessor (Quadro Volta) and successor (Workstation Ampere) listed; the Radeon has neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two shared benchmark tests provide direct comparison data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA T1000 scores 37,704 against the AMD Radeon Pro 570's 27,702, a 36.1% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a substantial margin that holds despite the Radeon's higher theoretical FP32 throughput (3.960 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS) and higher memory bandwidth (217.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s). The OpenCL result indicates that the T1000's Turing architecture translates its compute resources into actual OpenCL performance far more efficiently than GCN 4.0 does on the Radeon.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA T1000 scores 34,874 against the Radeon's 31,974, a 9.1% advantage. This is a tighter margin than OpenCL, suggesting that the Radeon's Vulkan driver implementation is relatively stronger than its OpenCL performance. Still, the T1000 wins this test as well, extending its head-to-head record to 2 wins and 0 losses. The Vulkan gap is less than a third of the OpenCL gap, which could indicate that the Radeon's newer Vulkan 1.3 support (versus the T1000's 1.4) partially compensates for its architectural disadvantages.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the T1000's average score of 36,289 places it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 2.2%: the AMD Radeon RX 5300M at 36,529 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530 (0.7% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Duo at 35,860 (1.2% ahead of the T1000's position), and the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 at 35,520 (2.2% ahead). This clustering suggests the T1000 sits in a highly competitive performance band where tiny margins separate products.

The Radeon Pro 570's average of 33,207 places it in the 78th percentile. Its nearest rivals are even tighter: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile at 33,170 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA T550 Mobile at 33,161 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA P104-100 at 32,982 (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile at 32,849 (1.1% behind). The Radeon's 78th percentile rank is only 2 points below the T1000's 80th, but the 9.3% average score gap is meaningful in real-world terms.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T1000 wins in compute-oriented OpenCL workloads by a wide 36.1% margin, making it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. It also wins Vulkan workloads by 9.1%, covering graphics and compute applications that use the Vulkan API. Its 50 W power draw is one-third of the Radeon's 150 W, making it dramatically more power-efficient per unit of performance. The T1000 also delivers a higher pixel rate (44.64 GPixel/s versus 35.36 GPixel/s), which benefits rasterization-heavy workloads even though its raw texture rate is lower. Its single-slot form factor and compact dimensions (156 mm length, 69 mm height) make it suitable for space-constrained systems, and its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide multi-display flexibility.

The AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins in one specific and important area: Metal performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 39,945 is the highest single benchmark result between the two cards, exceeding the T1000's best score (37,704 in OpenCL) by 5.9%. Since the T1000 has no Metal score recorded, the Radeon is the only option for Metal-accelerated workflows. The Radeon also has higher raw theoretical throughput: 3.960 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.500 TFLOPS, 123.8 GTexel/s texture rate versus 78.12 GTexel/s, and 217.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s. These specifications suggest that workloads which can fully utilize the Radeon's larger compute and memory resources might perform better, even though the shared benchmarks do not reflect this. The Radeon's 256-bit memory bus is twice the width of the T1000's 128-bit bus, which could benefit large data sets that fit within the 4 GB frame buffer. Its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for integrated mobile or embedded systems, not traditional desktop expansion slots. The Radeon also has a higher transistor count (5,700 million versus 4,700 million) and a larger die (232 mm² versus 200 mm²).

For practical deployment, the data suggests the T1000 is the better general-purpose professional GPU, with wins in both shared APIs and a massive power efficiency advantage. The Radeon Pro 570 is the specialized choice for Metal-centric Apple ecosystems, where its 39,945 Metal score provides performance that the T1000 cannot match in that API.