AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs NVIDIA T600 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 570 and NVIDIA T600 Mobile represent two distinct approaches to professional mobile graphics, and their benchmark results reveal a clear performance split depending on the API used. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile posts a score of 35,486, which is 21.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 570's 27,702. This is a substantial margin, placing the NVIDIA part firmly ahead in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. Conversely, the Vulkan test flips the outcome: the AMD Radeon Pro 570 scores 31,974, beating the T600 Mobile's 30,211 by 5.8%. The data therefore shows no single overall victor; instead, the winner is determined entirely by the software stack in use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results provide a concise but telling comparison. The first, Geekbench OpenCL, is a decisive win for the NVIDIA T600 Mobile. With a score of 35,486 against the AMD Radeon Pro 570's 27,702, the delta is 21.9% in NVIDIA's favor. This is not a marginal difference; it indicates that in OpenCL-heavy applications, the T600 Mobile delivers roughly a fifth more performance. The architectural reasons for this will be explored later, but the raw numbers are unambiguous.

The second benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, shows the AMD Radeon Pro 570 recovering ground. Its score of 31,974 surpasses the T600 Mobile's 30,211 by 5.8%. While this margin is smaller than NVIDIA's OpenCL lead, it is still a meaningful advantage. For users or applications that rely on Vulkan, the AMD part holds a clear edge. This split is typical of GPUs from different vendors, as driver optimization and hardware design often favor specific APIs.

Looking at the broader context, the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon Pro 570 is 33,207, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile averages 32,849. This puts the AMD part just 1.1% ahead on average, based on the nearestRivals data. Interestingly, the AMD Radeon Pro 570's nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA T600 Mobile with a deltaPct of 1.1%, meaning AMD's average score is slightly higher. Conversely, the T600 Mobile's list shows the AMD part with a deltaPct of -0.9%? No, that is not correct. The T600 Mobile's nearestRivals list does not include the Radeon Pro 570 directly, but its own average of 32,849 is compared to others, such as the NVIDIA P104-100 at 32,982 (deltaPct -0.4%). The head-to-head OpenCL result, however, is where the T600 Mobile's strength truly shows, as the 21.9% delta is far larger than the 1.1% average score difference. This suggests that OpenCL performance is a particular strength for the NVIDIA part, while Vulkan is a relative weakness.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 35,486, which is 21.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 570's score of 27,702.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark, and what is the margin?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 31,974, defeating the NVIDIA T600 Mobile's 30,211 by a margin of 5.8%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 has an average benchmark score of 33,207, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile averages 32,849. The AMD part is 1.1% ahead of the T600 Mobile according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 ranks in the 78th percentile, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile ranks in the 77th percentile. This indicates they are very closely matched overall, with AMD holding a one-point percentile advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T600 Mobile have a higher pixel rate than the AMD Radeon Pro 570?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile has a pixel rate of 45.12 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 570's 35.36 GPixel/s. The data shows a clear advantage for NVIDIA in this specific metric.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 floating-point performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 delivers 3.960 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is notably higher than the NVIDIA T600 Mobile's 2.527 TFLOPS. This indicates AMD's part has a raw compute advantage in single-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark and explains much of the benchmark behavior. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Ellesmere chip, and fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile employs the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. This process difference gives NVIDIA a slight density advantage, but the transistor counts tell a different story: AMD packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, while NVIDIA uses 4,700 million on a 200 mm² die. The transistor density is comparable (24.6M / mm² for AMD vs 23.5M / mm² for NVIDIA), but AMD's larger chip houses more hardware.

The compute resources differ significantly. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The NVIDIA T600 Mobile has only 896 shading units and 56 TMUs, but also 32 ROPs. This means AMD has exactly double the shading units and TMUs of NVIDIA. Despite this, the NVIDIA part achieves a higher pixel rate (45.12 GPixel/s vs 35.36 GPixel/s), due to its higher boost clock of 1410 MHz compared to AMD's 1105 MHz. The texture rate, however, favors AMD at 123.8 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA's 78.96 GTexel/s, because of the massive TMU count advantage.

The FP32 performance follows the shading unit count. AMD delivers 3.960 TFLOPS, while NVIDIA manages 2.527 TFLOPS. Interestingly, the FP16 performance flips the script: NVIDIA's Turing architecture supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, yielding 5.053 TFLOPS, while AMD's GCN 4.0 offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 output at 3.960 TFLOPS. This means NVIDIA is faster in FP16 workloads, despite being slower in FP32. The API support also differs, with AMD supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, giving NVIDIA a newer feature set in both APIs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the two GPUs reveal several key divergences beyond the core architecture. The process node differs, with AMD using 14 nm and NVIDIA using 12 nm, leading to different transistor counts and die sizes as mentioned. The clock speeds are also notably different: the AMD Radeon Pro 570 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1105 MHz, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile has a much lower base clock of 780 MHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 1410 MHz. This higher boost clock is what allows NVIDIA to achieve its superior pixel rate.

Memory configuration is another area of clear difference. Both GPUs have 4 GB of memory, but the type and bus width differ. AMD uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s. NVIDIA uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. The effective memory clock also differs, with AMD at 6.8 Gbps and NVIDIA at 12 Gbps, but the narrower bus on NVIDIA's part limits overall bandwidth. The power consumption is a major differentiator: the AMD Radeon Pro 570 has a TDP of 150 W, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile draws only 40 W. This makes NVIDIA's part far more power-efficient, which is critical for mobile workstations.

The shading unit count is identical to the architecture section, but it's worth reiterating that AMD has 1,792 shading units versus NVIDIA's 896. The TMU count is 112 for AMD and 56 for NVIDIA, while the ROP count is equal at 32. The FP32 and FP16 performance figures differ as described, and the pixel and texture rates are also distinct. Finally, the release dates show a significant gap: the AMD Radeon Pro 570 was released on June 4, 2017, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile was released on April 11, 2021. Both are end-of-life products, but NVIDIA's is a much newer design.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data and specifications point to distinct use cases for each GPU. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile is the clear winner in OpenCL compute workloads, as evidenced by its 21.9% lead in that specific benchmark. This makes it a better fit for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, such as certain scientific simulations or rendering tasks. Additionally, its lower TDP of 40 W compared to AMD's 150 W makes it a superior choice for thin-and-light mobile workstations where battery life and thermal management are paramount. The higher pixel rate of 45.12 GPixel/s also suggests NVIDIA is better suited for tasks that involve heavy rasterization at high resolutions, such as 2D or 3D viewport rendering in CAD software.

On the other hand, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins in Vulkan workloads, with a 5.8% advantage in that benchmark. This makes it the better option for applications that utilize the Vulkan API, which is increasingly common in modern game engines and some professional visualization tools. The AMD part also has a significant edge in raw FP32 compute, delivering 3.960 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 2.527 TFLOPS, which is a 56.7% advantage. This is beneficial for single-precision compute tasks that do not rely on OpenCL, such as certain machine learning inference workloads or physics simulations. Furthermore, the higher texture rate of 123.8 GTexel/s, due to the doubled TMU count, makes AMD better suited for texture-heavy tasks like photogrammetry or complex material rendering.

In terms of overall average performance, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 holds a slim 1.1% lead over the NVIDIA T600 Mobile, and it ranks in the 78th percentile versus NVIDIA's 77th. This means that for a general mix of workloads, the two are nearly equivalent. However, the choice between them should be dictated by the specific software stack. If OpenCL performance and power efficiency are the priorities, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is the winner. If Vulkan performance and FP32 compute throughput are more important, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 takes the crown. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a targeted one based on the user's application needs.