AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 represent two vastly different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by four years of architectural evolution and targeting entirely different market segments. The MX570 is a modern, ultra-low-power Ampere chip designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the RX Vega 56 is a high-performance desktop card built on the older GCN 5.0 architecture. Benchmark data places both GPUs at the 81st percentile among all GPUs, yet their average scores diverge significantly, with the MX570 averaging 38,299 and the RX Vega 56 averaging 37,507. This places the MX570 slightly ahead, with a 0.4% deltaPct advantage over the RTX 4080 Mobile, while the RX Vega 56 trails the RTX 4070 by 0.4%. The following analysis breaks down how these two disparate designs compare across architecture, benchmarks, and use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 has a higher average benchmark score of 38,299, compared to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56's 37,507. This represents a 2.1% difference in favor of the MX570.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The MX570 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 56 features 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is over four times higher.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The MX570 has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors, making it an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor. The RX Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP, uses dual 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which GPU supports real-time ray tracing?

A: The NVIDIA MX570 includes 16 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), indicating hardware ray tracing capability. The AMD RX Vega 56 has no RT cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1), so it lacks dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The MX570 was released on December 16, 2021, while the RX Vega 56 was released earlier on August 13, 2017. Both are now end-of-life products.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The RX Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units, significantly more than the MX570's 2,048. However, the MX570 compensates with higher transistor density (43.5M per mm² vs. 25.3M per mm²) and a smaller process node.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, rooted in different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The MX570 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture using an 8 nm process at Samsung, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. This yields a high transistor density of 43.5M per mm², allowing for efficient scaling in a low-power envelope. In contrast, the RX Vega 56 uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors spread across a much larger 495 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 25.3M per mm².

The core configurations reflect their target markets. The MX570 features 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, alongside 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. The RX Vega 56 counters with 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but lacks any RT or tensor cores. This means the MX570 can accelerate ray-traced workloads and AI inference, while the RX Vega 56 relies entirely on traditional rasterization. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the MX570 has a base clock of 832 MHz and a boost of 1155 MHz, while the RX Vega 56 runs at 1156 MHz base and 1471 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the MX570's newer architecture achieves higher FP32 throughput per watt, though the RX Vega 56 still leads in raw compute with 10.54 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MX570 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, a minimal configuration suited for light workloads. The RX Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a massive 2048-bit bus, providing 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth—an order of magnitude higher. This HBM2 implementation also allows for a more compact PCB design despite the larger die. The MX570's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the RX Vega 56's runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), but the vastly wider bus gives the latter a decisive bandwidth advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs are unavailable in the data, but the available benchmark scores and nearest rival comparisons offer a clear picture of relative performance. The MX570's single Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,299 places it just 0.1% behind the RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349) and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135). The RX Vega 56, meanwhile, has two benchmark results: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 and a Geekbench Metal score of 73,512. Its average score of 37,507 is 0.3% ahead of the Tesla P4 (37,628) and 0.4% behind the RTX 4070 (37,648).

Interpreting these numbers requires context. The MX570's average score is 2.1% higher than the RX Vega 56's average, a modest but consistent margin. However, the benchmark types differ: OpenCL is a compute-focused test, while Metal is Apple's graphics API. The RX Vega 56's Metal score of 73,512 is nearly double its OpenCL-equivalent average, suggesting strong performance in Apple-centric workloads. Conversely, the MX570's OpenCL result indicates solid general-purpose compute performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 for the RX Vega 56 reflects its DirectX 12 gaming capabilities, though without a comparable DX12 test for the MX570, direct gaming comparisons remain limited.

The nearest rival data reinforces the parity between these two GPUs. Both sit within 1.6% of the RTX 4080 Mobile, with the MX570 0.4% ahead and the RX Vega 56 1.6% behind. This suggests that despite their architectural differences, they occupy a similar performance tier in aggregate benchmarks. The MX570's advantage in average score is likely driven by its more efficient compute architecture, while the RX Vega 56's higher raw specs (more shading units, higher TFLOPS) do not translate into proportional benchmark wins.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear but nuanced verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 is the better choice for users prioritizing raw compute efficiency and modern feature support, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 suits those needing high memory bandwidth and traditional rasterization power. The MX570's 2.1% higher average score (38,299 vs. 37,507) gives it a slight edge in general benchmark performance, and its inclusion of 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores provides capabilities the RX Vega 56 simply cannot match. For ray tracing or AI-accelerated workloads, the MX570 is the only option between the two.

However, the RX Vega 56 counters with substantial advantages in memory and raw throughput. Its 409.6 GB/s bandwidth is 4.3 times higher than the MX570's 96.00 GB/s, and its 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 output more than doubles the MX570's 4.731 TFLOPS. This makes the RX Vega 56 more suitable for memory-intensive tasks like high-resolution texture loading or large dataset processing. The 8 GB VRAM versus 2 GB also allows the RX Vega 56 to handle larger scenes without swapping.

The production status and release dates further inform the verdict. The MX570 (released December 2021) is the newer product, built on a more advanced 8 nm process. The RX Vega 56 (released August 2017) is older but was a higher-end part at launch. Both are end-of-life, so neither offers longevity advantages. Ultimately, the MX570 wins on efficiency and features, while the RX Vega 56 wins on brute force and memory capacity.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal fundamental differences in every major component category. The process node differs significantly: 8 nm (Samsung) for the MX570 versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) for the RX Vega 56. Transistor counts are 8,700 million versus 12,500 million, with die sizes of 200 mm² versus 495 mm². This leads to transistor densities of 43.5M per mm² and 25.3M per mm², respectively.

Clock speeds show the MX570 running lower: 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost, compared to 1156 MHz base and 1471 MHz boost. Memory speeds are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the MX570 and 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) for the RX Vega 56. Memory capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the RX Vega 56: 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 409.6 GB/s, versus 2 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s.

Compute resources differ as expected: the MX570 has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The RX Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Pixel and texture rates are higher on the RX Vega 56: 94.14 GPixel/s and 329.5 GTexel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 10.54 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS, while FP16 is 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is a major differentiator: 15 W versus 210 W, with slot widths of IGP versus dual-slot, and power connectors of none versus 2x 8-pin. The suggested PSU for the RX Vega 56 is 550 W. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 for the MX570 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the RX Vega 56. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the MX570, while the RX Vega 56 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions also differ: the RX Vega 56 measures 280 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm, while the MX570 has no listed dimensions. API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the MX570 versus DirectX 12 (12_1) for the RX Vega 56, with Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The MX570 wins in scenarios demanding low power and modern features. Its 15 W TDP makes it ideal for ultra-portable devices where battery life and thermal management are critical, and its IGP slot width means it can be integrated into compact form factors. The RT cores and tensor cores enable ray tracing and AI-based features like DLSS, which are absent on the RX Vega 56. In compute benchmarks, the MX570's average score of 38,299 edges out the RX Vega 56's 37,507, suggesting better raw compute efficiency per watt. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface also offers higher bandwidth per lane than the RX Vega 56's PCIe 3.0 x16.

The RX Vega 56 wins in performance-heavy tasks where power draw is not a constraint. Its 8 GB VRAM and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth are essential for high-resolution gaming, 3D rendering, or video editing with large textures. The 3,584 shading units and 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 provide substantial rasterization throughput, evidenced by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501. The dual-slot design and 550 W suggested PSU indicate it belongs in a desktop system with adequate cooling and power delivery. Its 21.09 TFLOPS FP16 performance, double its FP32 rate, gives it an edge in compute tasks that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference workloads. The RX Vega 56's display outputs (HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a) make it suitable for multi-monitor setups, whereas the MX570's outputs depend on the host device.