AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and AMD Radeon RX 5300M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The data shows two compact GPUs aimed at portable systems, yet they diverge sharply in architecture, memory configuration, and raw compute characteristics. Benchmark results place them close in overall performance, but their individual strengths and weaknesses make them suitable for different workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 scores 38299 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36529 points. This gives the MX570 a 4.8% lead over the RX 5300M, a modest but clear advantage in raw compute throughput.

This 4.8% delta places the MX570 in a tight cluster of competitors. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile, scores 38349, which is only 0.1% higher. The MX570 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile, which scores 38135, putting the MX570 0.4% ahead of that part. Conversely, the MX570 trails the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A by 1% (that part scores 38691) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X by 1.1% (score 38706). This positioning indicates the MX570 sits at the very top of its performance tier, nearly matching far more expensive and power-hungry discrete GPUs in this specific compute workload.

The RX 5300M’s score of 36529 places it in a slightly lower bracket. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, scores 36530, a delta of 0% — essentially a statistical tie. The RX 5300M is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 (score 36289) and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (score 35860). However, it trails the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 by 1.7% (that part scores 37157). The RX 5300M’s performance is therefore competitive with older high-end desktop cards, but it does not reach the same compute peak as the MX570.

The win count confirms this: the MX570 wins 1 benchmark, while the RX 5300M wins 0. While a single test is not a comprehensive evaluation, the Geekbench OpenCL result is a strong indicator of general-purpose compute capability, where NVIDIA’s architecture demonstrates a measurable edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 scores 38299 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 5300M’s score of 36529.

Q: How does the MX570 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MX570 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (score 38349) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (score 38135). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A by 1% and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X by 1.1%.

Q: What is the RX 5300M’s competitive position?

A: The RX 5300M is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (score 36530, 0% delta). It is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Duo, but 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6400.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has a higher pixel rate at 46.24 GPixel/s, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570’s 36.96 GPixel/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M also leads in texture rate at 127.2 GTexel/s, versus the NVIDIA GeForce MX570’s 73.92 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU supports more advanced DirectX features?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The MX570 also includes dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, which the RX 5300M lacks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 uses the GA107S chip based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process by Samsung. This is a more recent design, released in December 2021. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. This chip is older, having been released in November 2019.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The MX570 integrates 8,700 million transistors on a die size of 200 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The RX 5300M integrates 6,400 million transistors on a smaller die of 158 mm², yielding a density of 40.5M per mm². Despite the older process node, the RX 5300M’s smaller die gives it a higher transistor density relative to its size, though the MX570 has more total transistors.

The shader configurations are radically different. The MX570 has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output pipelines (ROPs). It also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, making it a fully featured Ampere implementation. The RX 5300M has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but it has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as RDNA 1.0 does not support hardware ray tracing.

These architectural choices manifest in different compute ratios. The MX570 delivers 4.731 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 4.731 TFLOPS for FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RX 5300M delivers 4.069 TFLOPS of FP32 but 8.138 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). This means the RX 5300M has a significant advantage in half-precision compute, while the MX570 is more balanced. The MX570’s higher FP32 count, combined with its tensor cores, suggests a stronger general compute performance, which aligns with its benchmark lead.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5300M has 50% more memory capacity and 75% more bandwidth, a substantial advantage for memory-intensive workloads.

Clock speeds also differ. The MX570 has a base clock of 832 MHz and a boost clock of 1155 MHz, with memory running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The RX 5300M has a higher base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 1445 MHz, with a game clock of 1181 MHz. Its memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The RX 5300M’s higher clocks contribute to its superior fill rates.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The MX570 has a TDP of 15 W, while the RX 5300M has a TDP of 85 W. This is a 70 W difference, making the MX570 far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while the RX 5300M requires more substantial cooling. The MX570 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, while the RX 5300M has no slot width listed. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces and have no power connectors, but the MX570’s low TDP means it can be powered entirely by the motherboard.

The API support differs in DirectX version. The MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MX570’s newer DirectX feature level enables advanced rendering techniques like mesh shaders and variable rate shading. The MX570 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 5300M uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 is the clear winner in compute performance, taking the sole head-to-head benchmark with a 4.8% lead. Its higher FP32 throughput (4.731 TFLOPS vs 4.069 TFLOPS) and dedicated tensor cores make it better suited for general-purpose compute tasks, AI inference, and any workload that can leverage its ray tracing cores. Its low 15 W TDP is a decisive advantage for ultra-portable systems, where power efficiency is paramount. The MX570’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate also makes it the more future-proof option for gaming, provided the game engine can utilize its features. Benchmark results indicate this GPU punches far above its class, matching the compute output of GPUs like the RTX 5080 Mobile and RTX 4080 Mobile within a 0.4% margin.

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M wins in memory and fill-rate metrics. Its 3 GB of VRAM and 168.0 GB/s bandwidth are significantly superior to the MX570’s 2 GB and 96.00 GB/s, making it the better choice for workloads that require large textures or high-resolution frame buffers. Its pixel rate of 46.24 GPixel/s and texture rate of 127.2 GTexel/s are 25% and 72% higher than the MX570’s respective rates, indicating a stronger raw rasterization throughput. The RX 5300M’s FP16 performance of 8.138 TFLOPS is also substantially higher, which benefits applications that utilize half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning training or image processing algorithms. For users who prioritize raw graphics throughput over compute versatility, and who can accommodate the higher 85 W power draw, the RX 5300M offers a different set of strengths.

In practical terms, the MX570 is the better all-rounder for modern, feature-rich workloads and efficiency-sensitive designs. The RX 5300M is a more specialized part, trading compute efficiency for memory capacity and fill-rate performance. The single benchmark win for the MX570 is backed by its architectural advantages, but the RX 5300M’s specification sheet reveals areas where it can outperform its rival. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-bound or memory/bandwidth-bound, and whether the system can support the RX 5300M’s higher thermal and power requirements.