AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 represent two divergent approaches to compact graphics: one is an ultra-low-power mobile solution from NVIDIA's Ampere generation, while the other is a single-slot workstation card built on AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture. Benchmark data shows the MX570 edges ahead in OpenCL performance, but the W6400 counters with double the memory and superior memory bandwidth. Their closest rivals place both firmly in the upper tier of GPU performance, with the MX570 ranking in the 81st percentile and the W6400 at the 80th percentile among all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 posts a score of 38,299 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 35,027. That represents a 9.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a meaningful margin in compute workloads that scale with shading throughput. The MX570's FP32 performance of 4.731 TFLOPS versus the W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS explains much of this gap — the NVIDIA chip simply has more raw single-precision horsepower available, despite running at dramatically lower clock speeds.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the significance of these scores. The MX570's OpenCL result lands within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349) and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135), placing it in rarefied company. It also trails the GeForce MX570 A by just 1% (38,691) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X by 1.1% (38,706). The W6400, meanwhile, sits 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507), 1.3% behind both the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628) and GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648), while leading the GeForce GTX TITAN X by 1.7% (36,530).

However, the W6400 has an additional benchmark that the MX570 lacks: Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 39,286. This result suggests the AMD card's compute performance is highly API-dependent — its Vulkan score exceeds its OpenCL score by roughly 12.2%, whereas the MX570 has no corresponding Vulkan data to compare. For applications leveraging Vulkan compute, the W6400 may present a more competitive picture than the OpenCL comparison alone suggests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The MX570 uses NVIDIA's GA107S chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The W6400 counters with AMD's Navi 24 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process. Despite having fewer transistors — 5,400 million — the smaller 107 mm² die achieves a higher density of 50.5 million per mm², reflecting the more advanced process node.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The MX570 fields 2,048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, alongside 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The W6400 offers just 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. Despite having roughly 62.5% fewer shading units, the W6400 compensates with far higher clocks: a 2,039 MHz base and 2,321 MHz boost versus the MX570's 832 MHz base and 1,155 MHz boost. The AMD card's boost clock is more than double the NVIDIA part's base clock, which narrows the raw throughput gap considerably.

Memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The MX570 carries 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 12 Gbps effective. The W6400 doubles capacity to 4 GB of GDDR6, also on a 64-bit bus, but pushes memory speed to 16 Gbps effective for 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a one-third improvement in bandwidth and double the capacity. Both support PCIe 4.0, though the MX570 uses an x8 interface while the W6400 makes do with x4.

Feature support is broadly similar on the API front: both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Ray tracing hardware exists on both, with the MX570 carrying 16 RT cores and the W6400 featuring 12. The critical difference is tensor cores — present only on the NVIDIA side — which enable AI-accelerated workloads that the AMD card cannot hardware-accelerate.

Where Each One Wins

The MX570 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads, as its 9.3% benchmark advantage demonstrates. Its higher FP32 throughput (4.731 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS) makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU computing, particularly in applications that rely on OpenCL. The presence of 64 tensor cores gives it a distinct edge in machine learning inference and AI-assisted tasks, provided the software can leverage NVIDIA's tensor core architecture. Its 15 W TDP also makes it suitable for ultra-portable systems where power draw is a primary constraint — it requires no power connectors and is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) solution.

The W6400 wins in memory-intensive scenarios. Its 4 GB VRAM capacity is twice the MX570's 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets, higher-resolution textures, or multi-tasking with multiple GPU-accelerated applications. Its 128.0 GB/s bandwidth provides 33.3% more headroom than the MX570's 96.00 GB/s, benefiting workloads that stream data heavily. The Vulkan benchmark score of 39,286 indicates strong performance in Vulkan-based compute and graphics pipelines, potentially outperforming the MX570 in that specific API context. Its single-slot form factor and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (two of them) make it a practical choice for workstation integration where multiple displays and minimal chassis footprint matter. The suggested 250 W PSU requirement, while higher than the MX570's negligible draw, remains modest for a discrete card.

For gaming, the picture is mixed. The MX570's higher shading unit count and tensor cores suggest better raw geometry and shader throughput, but its 2 GB VRAM is limiting at higher resolutions or texture settings. The W6400's higher clocks and larger memory pool may compensate in titles that are bandwidth-bound or require more VRAM, though its lower shading unit count could bottleneck shader-heavy scenes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 6 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Shading Units | 2,048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Base Clock | 832 MHz | 2,039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,155 MHz | 2,321 MHz |

| FP32 Performance | 4.731 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Memory Speed | 12 Gbps effective | 16 Gbps effective |

| TDP | 15 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Pixel Rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| Release Date | 2021-12-16 | 2022-01-18 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The FP16 comparison is particularly striking: the W6400 delivers 7.130 TFLOPS of half-precision performance at a 2:1 ratio, more than 50% higher than the MX570's 4.731 TFLOPS at 1:1. For workloads that can exploit FP16 arithmetic — certain machine learning training passes, image processing, and scientific computing — the AMD card holds a significant advantage. Pixel rate also favors the W6400 dramatically at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it as well at 111.4 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s, both consequences of its much higher clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 scores 38,299 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.3% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 35,027.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX570's OpenCL score is within 0.1% of the RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349) and 0.4% above the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135), while the W6400 sits 0.9% behind the RX Vega 56 (37,507) and 1.3% behind both the Tesla P4 (37,628) and RTX 4070 (37,648).

Q: Does the W6400 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the W6400 scores 39,286 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than its own OpenCL score and suggests strong Vulkan compute capability. It also offers double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB) and 33.3% more memory bandwidth (128.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 64-bit memory bus.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and have dedicated ray tracing hardware. The MX570 has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the W6400 has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MX570 has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the W6400 has a 50 W TDP, also requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU for the system.