Intel Arc A550M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

The Intel Arc A550M and NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A occupy very different corners of the mobile GPU market, yet both are end-of-life products that can still be found in laptops. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the gap in features, memory capacity, and power draw makes the choice less straightforward than simple benchmark scores might suggest. This analysis relies entirely on the database measurements and specification sheets for both parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous in favor of the Intel Arc A550M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A550M scores 49894, while the MX570 A scores 39780. That is a 25.4% advantage for the Intel part. In the Vulkan test, the gap widens further: the Arc A550M posts 49580 against the MX570 A's 37601, a 31.9% lead. These are not marginal wins; the Intel part is decisively faster in both API tests.

Looking at the broader database context, the Arc A550M's average benchmark score is 49737, which places it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs. The MX570 A averages 38691, sitting at the 81st percentile. The raw delta between these averages is roughly 28.5%, which aligns with the individual test deltas. The Arc A550M's closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (average 49957, just 0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (average 50001, 0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (average 50951, 2.4% ahead). It also sits 2.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (average 48477). This places the Arc A550M in the company of desktop-class GPUs from several generations ago, a remarkable position for a 60 W mobile part.

The MX570 A's nearest rivals tell a different story. It is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (average 38706, 0% delta), 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (average 38349), and 1% ahead of the non-A MX570 (average 38299). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (average 39116) by 1.1%. These rivals are a mix of older workstation cards and the MX570's own sibling, indicating the MX570 A sits in a modest performance tier.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. The Arc A550M's 31.9% lead in Vulkan suggests that its architecture scales better with modern graphics APIs. Since both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, the software feature set is identical, but the underlying hardware efficiency differs substantially. The Intel part's higher texture and pixel throughput, combined with its larger memory bus, likely explains this advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A550M wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is less about raw performance and more about workload characteristics and system constraints.

For gaming and general compute, the Arc A550M is the clear pick. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the MX570 A's 96.00 GB/s. This matters for modern game textures, larger compute buffers, and any workload that exceeds 2 GB of video memory. The MX570 A's 2 GB allocation is a hard ceiling for current titles, many of which need more even at 1080p with reduced settings. The Arc A550M also has twice the TMUs (128 vs 64) and twice the ROPs (64 vs 32), which directly boosts fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The MX570 A has one clear advantage: power draw. At 25 W TDP versus 60 W, it consumes less than half the power. This translates to thinner laptops, quieter cooling, longer battery life, and less heat in compact chassis. For users who need basic acceleration for office work, video playback, light photo editing, or older games, the MX570 A is sufficient and far easier to integrate into a slim design. The Arc A550M's 60 W TDP demands a more substantial cooling solution, which means a larger, heavier laptop.

Compute performance also favors the Intel part. The Arc A550M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 16.79 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the MX570 A manages 4.731 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). For workloads that use FP16, the Intel part offers a 3.5x advantage in theoretical peak. The MX570 A's 64 tensor cores provide some AI acceleration, but the Arc A550M's 16 ray tracing cores and 16 RT cores (the same count as the MX570 A) make it more capable for DXR workloads, even if ray tracing performance is not explicitly benchmarked here.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Arc A550M is the faster GPU by a substantial margin. It wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, with leads of 25.4% in OpenCL and 31.9% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 49737 places it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX570 A's 38691 sits in the 81st percentile. For any task that stresses the GPU, the Arc A550M is the better choice.

However, the MX570 A is not without a role. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for ultraportable laptops where the 60 W Arc A550M simply cannot fit thermally. If the laptop's design goals prioritize battery life, slimness, and low heat over raw performance, the MX570 A is the pragmatic option. But that is a compromise, not a preference. The Arc A550M offers more than double the memory bandwidth, triple the texture rate, and nearly double the pixel rate, all of which translate to real-world gains.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data: gamers, content creators, and anyone running GPU-accelerated compute should choose the Arc A550M. Users who need a light, quiet, power-efficient laptop for basic tasks and occasional gaming can accept the MX570 A, but they should be aware they are leaving more than 25% of performance on the table. There is no benchmark in which the MX570 A beats the Arc A550M, and the only counterargument is power consumption, not performance.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A550M than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A in OpenCL?

A: The Arc A550M scores 49894 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX570 A scores 39780. That is a 25.4% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Arc A550M scores 49580 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 37601 for the MX570 A, a 31.9% lead. This is the single largest gap between the two in any recorded test.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDPs of these GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A550M has a TDP of 60 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A has a TDP of 25 W. The MX570 A uses less than half the power.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in the API feature set.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU in the database?

A: The Arc A550M's closest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (0.5% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (2.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (2.6% behind). The MX570 A's closest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (0% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (0.9% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce MX570 (1% ahead), and AMD Radeon Pro 575X (1.1% behind).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A550M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-512 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile). It is built on TSMC's 6 nm process node, with a die size of 406 mm² and 21,700 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A uses the Ampere architecture, built around the GA107SB chip, in the GeForce MX (5xx) generation. It is fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm node, with a die size of 200 mm² and 8,700 million transistors, for a density of 43.5M per mm².

The Intel chip is physically much larger and packs more than twice the transistors. It also has a higher transistor density despite the larger die, indicating a more complex design. The Arc A550M integrates 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The MX570 A also has 2048 shading units and 16 ray tracing cores, but only 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs. The MX570 A adds 64 tensor cores, a feature the Arc A550M does not list.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Arc A550M uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6 and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX570 A uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR6 and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part also has a higher memory clock: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The Arc A550M's pixel rate is 131.2 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s for the MX570 A, and its texture rate is 262.4 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s.

Both GPUs are IGP form factor (slot width), meaning they are soldered to the motherboard rather than installed in a slot. Both support PCIe 4.0, but the Arc A550M uses x16 lanes while the MX570 A uses x8. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both, meaning the laptop manufacturer controls the actual ports. The Arc A550M's FP32 throughput is 8.397 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The MX570 A's FP32 and FP16 are both 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), so it does not gain a rate advantage at reduced precision.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Manufacturer: Intel vs NVIDIA
• Chip: DG2-512 vs GA107SB
• Architecture: Xe-HPG vs Ampere
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) vs GeForce MX (5xx)
• Process node: 6 nm (TSMC) vs 8 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 21,700 million vs 8,700 million
• Die size: 406 mm² vs 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 53.4M / mm² vs 43.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 900 MHz vs 832 MHz
• Boost clock: 2050 MHz vs 1155 MHz
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• TMUs: 128 vs 64
• ROPs: 64 vs 32
• Tensor cores: None listed vs 64
• Pixel rate: 131.2 GPixel/s vs 36.96 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 262.4 GTexel/s vs 73.92 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.397 TFLOPS vs 4.731 TFLOPS
• FP16: 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 60 W vs 25 W
• Power connectors: None listed vs None
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Release date: Not listed vs 2021-12-16
• Average benchmark score: 49737 vs 38691
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 86 vs 81
• Head-to-head wins: 2 vs 0

Fields that are identical include shading units (2048), ray tracing cores (16), slot width (IGP), display outputs (portable device dependent), and the API set (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). The production status is end-of-life for both. Neither GPU has a listed launch MSRP, so no pricing information is available in the database.