AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400

The benchmark data splits this comparison neatly: the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A wins one major workload category decisively, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 takes the other with a narrower margin. Overall average scores place the NVIDIA part at 38,691 versus 37,157 for AMD — a 4.1% gap in favor of NVIDIA — but the per-application results tell a more nuanced story. The MX570 A lands in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the W6400 sits just behind at the 80th percentile, making these effectively peer-class products with distinct strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce MX570 A delivers its most emphatic victory in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 39,780 against the Radeon PRO W6400's 35,027. That is a 13.6% advantage for NVIDIA — the single largest margin in this comparison. The OpenCL result aligns with the MX570 A's raw compute specifications: 2,048 shading units and 4.731 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, both substantially higher than the AMD card's 768 shading units and 3.565 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA GPU also brings 64 tensor cores and 16 RT cores into the equation, which may contribute to its OpenCL lead in workloads that leverage these accelerators.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 fights back in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 39,286 versus the MX570 A's 37,601. That is a 4.3% win for AMD — a meaningful but far smaller margin than NVIDIA's OpenCL advantage. Notably, the Vulkan result favors AMD despite the NVIDIA card's higher FP32 throughput, suggesting that AMD's architecture handles Vulkan's command and memory model more efficiently, or that the W6400's higher clock speeds (2,321 MHz boost versus 1,155 MHz) play a decisive role in this API. The W6400 also doubles the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which could reduce pressure in memory-intensive Vulkan scenes.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the MX570 A's average score of 38,691 places it within 0% of the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349). The W6400's 37,157 average sits 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507) and 1.3% behind both the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648). What these rival clusters reveal is that both cards operate in a tightly contested performance band where a single benchmark can flip the ranking.

The head-to-head tally ends at one win apiece, but the magnitudes differ sharply. NVIDIA's 13.6% OpenCL victory dwarfs AMD's 4.3% Vulkan margin, which means the overall average favors NVIDIA by roughly 1,534 points. For buyers prioritizing OpenCL-heavy applications — common in scientific computing and some rendering pipelines — the MX570 A is the clear choice. For Vulkan-centric workloads, the W6400 offers a respectable edge, though it does not fully compensate for its OpenCL deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the pick for compute-throughput-oriented tasks. Its FP32 performance of 4.731 TFLOPS is 32.7% higher than the AMD card's 3.565 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 73.92 GTexel/s exceeds the W6400's 111.4 GTexel/s only on paper — wait, that number is actually lower; the correct comparison shows NVIDIA trails in texture rate, but the shading unit count (2,048 versus 768) and tensor core availability (64 versus none) give it structural advantages in parallel compute. The OpenCL benchmark confirms this: a 13.6% win that likely stems from the NVIDIA GPU's ability to feed its larger shader array. The MX570 A also consumes just 25 W TDP, which is half the W6400's 50 W, making it the efficiency leader for systems where power draw matters.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 4 GB of GDDR6 versus 2 GB on the MX570 A, and memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s — a 33.3% improvement. The Vulkan benchmark victory (4.3%) likely reflects this memory advantage, as larger framebuffers and faster bandwidth reduce stuttering in geometry-heavy scenes. The W6400 also has a significantly higher pixel rate at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s, which benefits rasterization-bound Vulkan workloads. Its FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) doubles the MX570 A's 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1), offering an edge in mixed-precision compute where that mode is supported.

Clock speeds tell a stark story: the AMD GPU boosts to 2,321 MHz versus 1,155 MHz for NVIDIA, a doubling that partially compensates for the shader count disparity. The W6400 also provides dual DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MX570 A's display outputs are "portable device dependent," meaning the NVIDIA solution is designed for laptops and compact systems rather than fixed workstations. For professional users needing reliable multi-monitor setups, the AMD card's fixed display outputs are a practical advantage.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A if your primary workloads run OpenCL or benefit from tensor cores. The 13.6% OpenCL lead is the largest performance delta in this comparison, and the 64 tensor cores provide acceleration potential for AI-inference tasks that the AMD card simply cannot match, as it has no tensor core equivalent. The MX570 A's 25 W TDP also makes it suitable for power-constrained portable devices, and its 81st percentile ranking (versus 80th for AMD) confirms it as the marginally stronger overall performer.

Choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 if Vulkan performance, memory capacity, or fixed display outputs are priorities. The 4.3% Vulkan win, combined with double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB) and 33.3% higher memory bandwidth, makes it the better choice for modern game engines and graphics APIs that leverage Vulkan. The W6400's single-slot form factor and dual DisplayPort 1.4a outputs suit desktop workstation builds, and its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modest for a professional card. The AMD card also edges out the MX570 A in pixel rate (74.27 versus 36.96 GPixel/s) and FP16 throughput (7.130 versus 4.731 TFLOPS), which may matter in specific rendering or compute pipelines.

For users who cannot predict their workload mix, the data leans slightly toward NVIDIA: the average benchmark score is higher (38,691 versus 37,157), the OpenCL win is larger than the Vulkan loss, and the tensor cores add future-proofing for machine learning. However, the 2 GB VRAM ceiling on the MX570 A is a genuine limitation for large datasets or high-resolution textures. If your applications fit within 2 GB, NVIDIA is the safer bet; if they exceed it, AMD's 4 GB buffer becomes non-negotiable regardless of API preference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A averages 38,691 across all benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157 — a 4.1% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The MX570 A scores 39,780 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 35,027 for the W6400, giving NVIDIA a 13.6% lead.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the W6400 wins Geekbench Vulkan with 39,286 points against 37,601 for the MX570 A — a 4.3% margin.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6, double the 2 GB on the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The W6400 provides 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s on the MX570 A, a 33.3% improvement for AMD.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though the MX570 A adds 64 tensor cores while the W6400 has no tensor core equivalent.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is built on the GA107SB chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The die measures 200 mm² and packs 8,700 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The GPU features 2,048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 16 RT cores for ray tracing, and 64 tensor cores for AI acceleration. Its FP32 throughput is 4.731 TFLOPS, and FP16 runs at the same rate (1:1 ratio). The memory subsystem uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, delivering 96.00 GB/s.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0 architecture, built by TSMC on a 6 nm process — a smaller and denser node than NVIDIA's 8 nm Samsung process. The die is 107 mm² with 5,400 million transistors, resulting in a higher density of 50.5M per mm². Compute resources include 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 12 RT cores but no tensor cores. The W6400 achieves 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.130 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). Its 64-bit memory bus carries 4 GB of GDDR6 at 16 Gbps effective, producing 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds differ drastically: the AMD card boosts to 2,321 MHz versus 1,155 MHz for NVIDIA.

The transistor density difference (50.5M vs 43.5M per mm²) reflects the newer 6 nm process. The RDNA 2.0 architecture emphasizes clock speed and memory efficiency, while Ampere focuses on shader count and tensor acceleration. The MX570 A's 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores have no direct AMD equivalent in this comparison, as the W6400 offers only RT cores (12) without tensor hardware.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process node | 8 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

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

| Die size | 200 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Base clock | 832 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1155 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory speed | 12 Gbps effective | 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| RT cores | 16 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | 64 | None |

| FP32 performance | 4.731 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

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

| Pixel rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 25 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

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

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

The NVIDIA card is a mobile-integrated solution (IGP slot width) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, reflecting its 25 W TDP. The AMD card is a single-slot desktop component with a 250 W suggested PSU and fixed dual DisplayPort outputs. Both use PCIe 4.0, but NVIDIA employs x8 lanes versus AMD's x4. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has a listed launch MSRP.