AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon RX 6550M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the AMD part records a score of 42,536, while the NVIDIA part achieves 38,299. The resulting delta of 11.1% places the AMD Radeon RX 6550M clearly ahead, and it secures the only head-to-head win recorded between these two mobile graphics solutions.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the average benchmark scores reinforce the same hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M posts an average score of 46,702 across its recorded tests, which includes both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570, with only an OpenCL result in the database, settles at an average of 38,299. That gap of roughly 22% in average score is substantial, though the comparison is not perfectly apples-to-apples because the AMD part has two benchmark entries while the NVIDIA part has one.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M also shows strong positioning against its nearest rivals in the database. It sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score just 0.2% above the Intel Arc A530M (46,614) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601). It leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.4% and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.6%. These are narrow margins, indicating that the RX 6550M is clustered tightly with mid-range workstation and mobile parts, rather than being an outlier in either direction.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570, by contrast, lands at the 81st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile, which scores 38,349 and trails the MX570 by just 0.1%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is 0.4% behind at 38,135, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is 1% ahead at 38,691, and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X leads by 1.1% at 38,706. The MX570 therefore occupies a competitive band where small score differences separate it from much more modern and more expensive parts, though its absolute score remains well below the RX 6550M.

In practical terms, the 11.1% OpenCL delta translates into a measurable performance advantage for the AMD part in compute-heavy tasks. OpenCL performance is often indicative of general GPU compute throughput, and the RX 6550M's higher score suggests it will handle OpenCL-accelerated applications with more headroom than the MX570. The Vulkan score for the RX 6550M, at 50,867, further indicates that its graphics-oriented compute performance is even stronger than its OpenCL showing, though no comparable Vulkan result exists for the MX570 in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 24 chip, and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107S chip, produced on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process node difference is significant: 6 nm versus 8 nm typically allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency, and the recorded numbers support that.

The AMD chip contains 5,400 million transistors on a die size of 107 mm², yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip packs 8,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, which works out to 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. Despite having fewer total transistors, the AMD die is much smaller and denser, which is consistent with the more advanced manufacturing process.

Core counts present an interesting inversion. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has 2,048 shading units, double the 1,024 shading units on the AMD Radeon RX 6550M. Both parts have 64 texture mapping units and 32 raster output units, and both feature 16 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 64 tensor cores, while the AMD part has none listed. However, the AMD part compensates with much higher clock speeds: a 2,000 MHz base and 2,840 MHz boost, compared to 832 MHz base and 1,155 MHz boost for the NVIDIA part. The AMD GPU also has a listed game clock of 2,560 MHz, which the NVIDIA part lacks entirely.

The result is that the AMD part achieves higher throughput despite fewer shading units. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M records 5.816 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 11.63 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 manages 4.731 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 4.731 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The texture rate tells a similar story: 181.8 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 73.92 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, a margin of roughly 2.5x. The pixel rate is 90.88 GPixel/s for AMD versus 36.96 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, again a wide gap.

Memory configurations also differ in capacity and bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on the same 64-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 96.00 GB/s. The effective memory clock for the AMD part is 18 Gbps, while the NVIDIA part runs at 12 Gbps. The AMD part also has a higher memory base clock of 2,250 MHz versus 1,500 MHz for the NVIDIA part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in every head-to-head category where data exists. Its single benchmark victory in Geekbench OpenCL is backed by superior raw throughput metrics across the board. The FP32 compute gap of 5.816 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS means the AMD part is roughly 23% faster for general-purpose compute, which aligns closely with the 22% average score difference. The FP16 performance is even more lopsided: 11.63 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS, a 2.5x advantage that matters for workloads using reduced precision.

For texture-heavy workloads, the AMD part's 181.8 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s gives it a clear edge in games and applications that rely on texture sampling. The pixel rate advantage, 90.88 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s, suggests the AMD part can drive higher fill rates at lower resolutions, which is relevant for rasterization-bound scenarios. The memory bandwidth difference, 144.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, also favors the AMD part in bandwidth-sensitive tasks such as high-resolution textures or large compute buffers.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has no recorded wins in the database. Its strengths are structural rather than performance-based. The 2,048 shading units, double the AMD count, could theoretically benefit workloads that scale well with shader count rather than clock speed, but the measured benchmark does not reflect that. The 64 tensor cores, absent on the AMD part, provide a potential advantage for AI and machine learning inference tasks, though no benchmark data exists in the database to quantify this. The NVIDIA part also carries a much lower TDP of 15 W versus 80 W for the AMD part, which makes it a more power-efficient choice for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals take priority over raw performance.

The 81st percentile ranking for the MX570 shows it is still a capable part in the broader GPU landscape, sitting just below the RX 6550M's 85th percentile. The MX570's nearest rivals include the RTX 5080 Mobile and RTX 4080 Mobile, which are far more expensive and power-hungry parts, yet the MX570 matches or slightly beats them in average score. That suggests the MX570 is a well-optimized part for its power class, even if it cannot keep pace with the RX 6550M in absolute terms.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category except for a few shared traits. Both use GDDR6 memory, a 64-bit memory bus, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Beyond those commonalities, the differences are extensive.

The manufacturing process differs: 6 nm TSMC for AMD versus 8 nm Samsung for NVIDIA. Transistor counts are 5,400 million versus 8,700 million, with die sizes of 107 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² for AMD versus 43.5M per mm² for NVIDIA. Clock speeds diverge sharply: base clocks are 2,000 MHz versus 832 MHz, boost clocks are 2,840 MHz versus 1,155 MHz, and the AMD part has a game clock of 2,560 MHz that the NVIDIA part lacks. Memory clocks are 2,250 MHz versus 1,500 MHz, with effective rates of 18 Gbps versus 12 Gbps.

Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, and bandwidth is 144.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Shading units are 1,024 versus 2,048, while TMUs are 64 versus 64 and ROPs are 32 versus 32. Ray tracing cores are 16 on both, but tensor cores are 64 on the NVIDIA part and null on the AMD part. Pixel rates are 90.88 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 181.8 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.816 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS, while FP16 performance is 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 80 W versus 15 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for NVIDIA.

Production status also differs: the AMD part is Active, while the NVIDIA part is End-of-life. The release dates are January 3, 2023 for the AMD part and December 16, 2021 for the NVIDIA part. The AMD part has a predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor or successor recorded. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 42,536, which is 11.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570's 38,299.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has an average score of 46,702 across its two recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 averages 38,299 from its single benchmark.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD part has 4 GB of GDDR6 with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part has 2 GB of GDDR6 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 6550M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 have 16 ray tracing cores, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD part runs at a 2,000 MHz base and 2,840 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part runs at 832 MHz base and 1,155 MHz boost. The AMD part also has a 2,560 MHz game clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has a TDP of 15 W.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the AMD Radeon RX 6550M for anyone prioritizing raw performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with an 11.1% margin, holds a 22% advantage in average score, and leads in every throughput metric: FP32, FP16, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. Its 85th percentile ranking versus 81st for the NVIDIA part confirms that it sits higher in the overall GPU distribution. The 4 GB memory capacity, double that of the MX570, also makes it the better choice for modern workloads that exceed 2 GB of VRAM.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 is the choice for power-constrained systems. Its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the AMD part's 80 W, making it far more suitable for ultra-thin laptops where cooling and battery life are critical. The 2,048 shading units and 64 tensor cores provide architectural resources that the AMD part lacks, even if the measured OpenCL score does not translate that into a win. The MX570 also has a wider PCIe interface at x8 versus x4, which could matter for data transfer in some scenarios.

For gaming and compute-heavy applications, the AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the superior option based on every recorded measurement. For passive cooling, fanless designs, or extended battery operation, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 is the more practical fit despite its lower performance. The production status also favors the AMD part, which remains active, while the NVIDIA part is end-of-life. Users who want the fastest mobile GPU in this comparison should choose the AMD Radeon RX 6550M; users who need minimal power draw should look to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570.