AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X and NVIDIA GeForce MX570 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly three years of GPU architecture evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result where the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 takes a clear victory in OpenCL performance, though the broader benchmark landscape reveals a more nuanced picture. The Radeon Pro 575X carries an 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the MX570 sits just one point behind at the 81st percentile, indicating they occupy nearly identical tiers of overall performance despite their architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 decisively. The MX570 scores 38,299, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X manages 34,773, producing a delta of -9.2% for the AMD part. This is a meaningful gap in compute workloads, suggesting NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture delivers better raw OpenCL throughput in this specific scenario.

However, the broader benchmark suite tells a more complete story. The Radeon Pro 575X achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 44,655, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,919, and that OpenCL result of 34,773, averaging 39,116 across all tests. The MX570 has only its OpenCL score of 38,299 on record, which becomes its average benchmark score as well. This means the AMD card’s average is 817 points higher than the NVIDIA card’s single recorded score, even though NVIDIA wins the only shared test.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The Radeon Pro 575X sits 1.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) and 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38,691), while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro 575 by 1.1% (39,555) and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile by 1.1% (39,568). The MX570, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at -0.1% (38,349), sits 0.4% above the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135), trails the MX570 A by 1% (38,691), and falls 1.1% behind the Radeon Pro 580X (38,706).

What emerges is a picture of two GPUs that, despite their very different architectures and power profiles, land within roughly 2% of each other in average benchmark performance. The MX570’s single-test advantage in OpenCL is real but narrow, and the Radeon Pro 575X’s additional Metal and Vulkan scores suggest it may hold advantages in those specific API environments—though without direct head-to-head data for those tests, that remains inference from the available numbers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors onto a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570, by contrast, uses the GA107S chip built on Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a smaller 200 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Radeon Pro 575X offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The MX570 provides only 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with bandwidth dropping to 96.00 GB/s at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). This gives the AMD part more than double the memory bandwidth, a critical advantage for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Compute resources show both similarities and differences. Both GPUs feature 2,048 shading units and 32 ROPs. However, the Radeon Pro 575X has 128 TMUs versus just 64 on the MX570, giving AMD a significant texture-processing edge. The MX570 counters with 16 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the GCN 4.0-based Radeon part. Clock behavior also differs: the MX570 has specified base and boost clocks of 832 MHz and 1155 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 575X lists no base or boost clocks in the data.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The Radeon Pro 575X achieves 35.07 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 140.3 GTexel/s texture rate, while the MX570 posts 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s respectively. The NVIDIA part edges ahead in pixel throughput but trails by nearly half in texture rate. FP32 compute is close: the Radeon Pro 575X delivers 4.489 TFLOPS, while the MX570 reaches 4.731 TFLOPS. Both maintain a 1:1 ratio for FP16, with identical TFLOPS values for reduced precision.

Power consumption presents the starkest contrast. The Radeon Pro 575X carries a 150 W TDP, while the MX570 draws just 15 W—a tenfold difference. Both are integrated graphics packages (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX570 employs PCIe 4.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher average benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X holds the higher average benchmark score at 39,116 across three tests, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570’s 38,299 from a single OpenCL test—a difference of 817 points.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the MX570 includes 16 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores as part of its Ampere architecture. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has no ray-tracing or tensor cores listed in its specifications.

Q: How do memory bandwidth figures compare between these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X provides 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the MX570 offers 96.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. AMD’s bandwidth advantage exceeds 2.2x.

Q: What API levels does each GPU support?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving NVIDIA a newer DirectX and Vulkan version.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has a 15 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X is rated at 150 W. This makes the MX570 dramatically more power-efficient for thin-and-light laptops.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X sits at the 82nd percentile, while the MX570 ranks at the 81st percentile—essentially neck-and-neck in overall GPU hierarchy.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575X | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 832 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1155 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1695 MHz / 6.8 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz / 12 Gbps effective |

| TMUs | 128 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 64 |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 73.92 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2019-03-17 | 2021-12-16 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 4 GB with 217.0 GB/s throughput versus the MX570’s 2 GB with 96.00 GB/s. This makes the Radeon better suited for workloads that demand large texture sets or high-resolution framebuffers, particularly at higher display resolutions where the extra VRAM and wider 256-bit bus provide headroom the MX570 simply cannot match. Its 128 TMUs also deliver nearly double the texture fill rate (140.3 GTexel/s vs 73.92 GTexel/s), which benefits games and applications with complex texture filtering.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 wins on raw compute efficiency and modern features. Its 4.731 TFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the Radeon’s 4.489 TFLOPS despite using just one-tenth the power (15 W vs 150 W). The inclusion of 16 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores opens the door to hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS-style AI workloads, features entirely absent from the GCN 4.0 architecture. The MX570 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which may matter for forward-looking software compatibility.

For OpenCL compute specifically, the MX570’s 9.2% advantage in the head-to-head benchmark suggests NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture handles general-purpose compute more efficiently. However, the Radeon Pro 575X’s higher average benchmark score—bolstered by strong Metal and Vulkan results—indicates it remains competitive in those API environments, particularly on macOS platforms where Metal is the primary graphics interface.

The power envelope is the clearest differentiator. A 15 W MX570 enables fanless or ultra-thin designs, while a 150 W Radeon Pro 575X requires substantially more robust cooling and battery capacity. For users prioritizing portability and battery life, the MX570 is the obvious choice. For those needing maximum memory bandwidth and texture throughput in a larger chassis, the Radeon Pro 575X holds the edge. The data shows two GPUs that achieve similar overall performance through very different means—one through brute bandwidth and texture power, the other through architectural efficiency and modern feature support.