AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, both in compute-oriented workloads. The results are lopsided in favor of the AMD card, but the margin varies significantly depending on the API.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX Vega 64 scores 62,552 points against 39,780 for the MX570 A. That puts the AMD part 57.2% ahead, a substantial lead that reflects the raw compute throughput difference between a desktop flagship and a mobile entry-level chip. The Vega 64's FP32 rating of 12.66 TFLOPS versus the MX570 A's 4.731 TFLOPS explains most of this gap, though the OpenCL test also rewards memory bandwidth, where the AMD card's 483.8 GB/s dwarfs the NVIDIA chip's 96.00 GB/s.

The Vulkan result is even more decisive. The RX Vega 64 posts 67,032 points, while the MX570 A manages 37,601. That is a 78.3% advantage for the AMD card. Vulkan tends to scale well with shader count and memory subsystem throughput, both of which favor the Vega 64. The AMD card has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the MX570 A. The gap in texture rate is particularly stark: 395.8 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s, a 5.4x difference that shows up in any workload that stresses texture fetching.

Looking at the broader database averages, the RX Vega 64 has an average benchmark score of 50,001 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. The MX570 A averages 38,691 and sits in the 81st percentile. That percentile difference is smaller than the raw score gap might suggest, because the MX570 A is being compared against a field that includes many lower-end mobile parts, while the Vega 64 competes against desktop cards across multiple generations.

The nearest rivals for each card provide context. The RX Vega 64 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, 0.5% behind the Intel Arc A550M, 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, and 3.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT. That places it in the upper tier of GPUs from several generations, competitive with much newer hardware in average score terms. The MX570 A's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at a 0% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at 0.9% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 at 1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X at 1.1% behind. The MX570 A is essentially average for its class, while the Vega 64 punches well above its age.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 wins both head-to-head tests and holds a 29.3% higher average benchmark score than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A. The Vega 64's 57.2% OpenCL lead and 78.3% Vulkan lead make it the clear performance choice in every recorded workload.

However, the two cards are not competing for the same users. The RX Vega 64 is a 295 W desktop card with a 280 mm length, dual-slot cooler, and two 8-pin power connectors. It requires a 600 W power supply and was designed for full-size desktop cases. The MX570 A is a 25 W integrated-class mobile chip with no power connectors, no dimensions listed, and display outputs that depend on the host laptop. It is built for thin-and-light portables where power draw and heat are the primary constraints.

Users who need maximum compute performance in a desktop system should choose the RX Vega 64 without hesitation. It outperforms the MX570 A by a wide margin in both OpenCL and Vulkan, and its average score places it near much newer desktop parts like the RTX 5070 Ti and RX 6900 XT. Users who need a low-power GPU for a laptop and cannot accommodate a full-size desktop card have only one viable option in this comparison, the MX570 A, but they should understand that its compute performance is roughly one-third lower than the Vega 64's in OpenCL and roughly half in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is really about whether the workload can even run on the respective platforms. For desktop compute tasks, the Vega 64 is the only realistic choice. Its 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 2048-bit bus width provides 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for large datasets in OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads. The MX570 A's 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus offers only 96.00 GB/s, a 5x deficit that will bottleneck any memory-intensive operation.

For Vulkan gaming or compute, the Vega 64's 4,096 shading units and 25.33 TFLOPS FP16 throughput (2:1 ratio) give it a massive advantage. The MX570 A has 2,048 shading units and 4.731 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), so it cannot compete in any scenario that leverages shader parallelism.

The MX570 A does have one structural advantage: its 25 W TDP versus the Vega 64's 295 W. This enables operation in portable devices with no external power, and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is newer than the Vega 64's PCIe 3.0 x16. For workloads that are completely bandwidth-bound at the PCIe level, the MX570 A could theoretically transfer data faster per lane, but the Vega 64's 16 lanes at PCIe 3.0 still provide more total bandwidth, and the Vega 64's internal memory bandwidth is vastly superior.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 62,552 in OpenCL, which is 57.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A's 39,780.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX Vega 64 scores 67,032 in Vulkan, while the MX570 A scores 37,601, giving the AMD card a 78.3% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The RX Vega 64 has an average score of 50,001 across all recorded tests, while the MX570 A averages 38,691, a difference of 11,310 points or about 29.3%.

Q: Does the MX570 A have any ray tracing capability?

A: Yes, the MX570 A has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which the RX Vega 64 completely lacks. However, no ray tracing benchmarks are recorded in the database for either card.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The MX570 A uses 2 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RX Vega 64 ranks in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX570 A ranks in the 81st percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by four years. The RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The MX570 A uses the GA107SB chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors in a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser process gives the NVIDIA chip a 72% higher transistor density despite having 30% fewer transistors overall.

The Vega 10 chip is a monolithic design focused on raw throughput. It has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware. Its FP32 output is 12.66 TFLOPS, and it can double that to 25.33 TFLOPS in FP16 using a 2:1 ratio. The GA107SB chip has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but adds 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. Its FP32 and FP16 output are both 4.731 TFLOPS, with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no FP16 acceleration advantage.

Memory architectures diverge sharply. The Vega 64 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, which is why it achieves 483.8 GB/s despite a relatively modest memory clock of 945 MHz (1,890 Mbps effective). The MX570 A uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s. The Vega 64's bandwidth advantage is 5x, a direct result of the wide HBM2 interface versus the narrow GDDR6 configuration.

API support also differs. The MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Vega 64 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the MX570 A supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 64 supports Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA chip's newer API support is a consequence of its 2021 release versus the Vega 64's 2017 launch.

Specification Differences

The most consequential specification difference is power consumption. The RX Vega 64 has a 295 W TDP, while the MX570 A has a 25 W TDP, an 11.8x gap. This dictates everything else about their physical designs. The Vega 64 is a dual-slot card measuring 280 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm, requiring two 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested power supply. The MX570 A is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, no dimensions listed, and no suggested PSU requirement.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Vega 64 runs at a base clock of 1,247 MHz and boosts to 1,546 MHz. The MX570 A has a base clock of 832 MHz and boosts to 1,155 MHz. The AMD card's higher clocks partially explain its compute advantage, but the architectural differences discussed above are the primary factor.

Memory size, type, and bandwidth all favor the Vega 64: 8 GB of HBM2 versus 2 GB of GDDR6, 2048-bit versus 64-bit bus, and 483.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The MX570 A's memory clock is higher (1,500 MHz versus 945 MHz), but the bus width deficit overwhelms that advantage.

The bus interface differs: the Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX570 A uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The newer standard offers more bandwidth per lane, but the Vega 64's 16 lanes at PCIe 3.0 still provide more total bandwidth than 8 lanes at PCIe 4.0.

Display outputs are a major differentiator. The Vega 64 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, allowing multi-monitor desktop setups. The MX570 A's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the laptop manufacturer and cannot be specified independently.

The Vega 64 launched on August 6, 2017, with a launch MSRP of 499 USD. The MX570 A launched on December 16, 2021, with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life in terms of production status. The Vega 64 has a predecessor (Polaris) and successor (Navi), while the MX570 A has neither listed.