NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and NVIDIA A2 are both Ampere-architecture parts built on the same 8 nm Samsung process, but they target entirely different roles: one is a mobile integrated GPU, the other a low-profile server accelerator. The benchmark data shows a clear split between raw compute performance and memory capacity, with each card winning where its design priorities lie.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 delivers a score of 38299 against the NVIDIA A2’s 35357. That is an 8.3% advantage for the MX570, a meaningful margin in compute workloads that scale with shader throughput. The MX570’s score places it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the A2 sits at the 79th percentile, so the gap is consistent with their overall standings.

Looking at the nearest rivals clarifies how each card sits in the broader landscape. The MX570’s 38299 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile’s 38349 (just -0.1%), and it edges out the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 38135 by 0.4%. It falls slightly behind the MX570 A variant’s 38691 (-1%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X’s 38706 (-1.1%). For the A2, its OpenCL score of 35357 is ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB’s 34561 by 0.4%, matches the AMD Radeon HD 7970’s 34541 at 0.4%, and leads the NVIDIA TITAN V’s 34355 by 1% and the RTX A1000’s 34207 by 1.4%.

The A2 also has a Vulkan score of 34023, which is lower than its OpenCL result, suggesting that its compute architecture does not gain as much from Vulkan’s lower-level API overhead. The MX570 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, so cross-API comparison is limited to OpenCL only. What the data shows is that the MX570 is the faster card in pure FP32 compute, but the A2’s advantage lies elsewhere — namely in memory capacity and bandwidth, which are not captured by the Geekbench OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: Ampere, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M / mm². The chips are closely related — the MX570 uses the GA107S die, while the A2 uses the GA107 — but they are configured very differently.

The MX570 has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. The A2 cuts those numbers down to 1280 shaders, 40 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 10 RT cores, and 40 tensor cores. That is a 37.5% reduction in shader count, which explains the MX570’s higher FP32 throughput of 4.731 TFLOPS versus the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS — a difference of roughly 4.4%.

Clock speeds tell the rest of the story. The A2 runs at a base of 1440 MHz and boosts to 1770 MHz, while the MX570 is much more conservative at 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. Despite the A2’s higher clocks, the MX570 still wins in FP32 because it has far more shaders. The A2’s higher clock rate does help its pixel fill rate: 56.64 GPixel/s versus the MX570’s 36.96 GPixel/s, a 53% advantage. Texture rate is closer, with the A2 at 70.80 GTexel/s and the MX570 at 73.92 GTexel/s, the latter winning by about 4%.

Memory is where the A2 asserts dominance. The MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth and eight times the capacity. Memory clocks also differ: the MX570 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the A2 runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The A2’s wider bus is the primary driver of its bandwidth advantage.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The MX570 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for laptops. The A2 is a single-slot card with a 60 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A2 has no display outputs, while the MX570’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent.” Both use PCIe 4.0 x8. API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570, with 4.731 TFLOPS FP32 versus the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX570 scores 38299 against the A2’s 35357, an 8.3% lead.

Q: Does the A2 have any performance advantage over the MX570?

A: Yes, in memory and pixel throughput. The A2 offers 200.1 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s, and a pixel rate of 56.64 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 70.80 GTexel/s is slightly lower than the MX570’s 73.92 GTexel/s.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the MX570 has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus. This is an eightfold capacity difference and a key differentiator for workloads that need large datasets resident on the GPU.

Q: Are they based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use Ampere architecture, built on 8 nm at Samsung, with identical transistor counts of 8,700 million and die size of 200 mm². The MX570 uses the GA107S chip, while the A2 uses GA107.

Q: What are their target form factors?

A: The MX570 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, intended for portable devices. The A2 is a single-slot card with a 60 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no display outputs.

Q: How do they rank among all GPUs?

A: The MX570 is in the 81st percentile, while the A2 is in the 79th. The MX570’s average benchmark score is 38299, while the A2’s is 34690 across its two recorded tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 | NVIDIA A2 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GA107S | GA107 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (5xx) | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) |

| Base clock | 832 MHz | 1440 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1155 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 200.1 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| RT cores | 16 | 10 |

| Tensor cores | 64 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 56.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 70.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.731 TFLOPS | 4.531 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 60 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | None | Workstation Ada |

| Release date | 2021-12-16 | 2021-11-09 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 wins the only shared benchmark, delivering 8.3% higher OpenCL performance than the A2, and it does so at a fraction of the power draw (15 W versus 60 W). Its larger shader count — 2048 versus 1280 — is the primary reason it edges ahead in FP32 compute despite lower clocks. If the workload is compute-bound and fits within 2 GB of memory, the MX570 is the faster part.

The NVIDIA A2 is the better choice when memory capacity or bandwidth dominates. Its 16 GB frame buffer is eight times larger, and its 200.1 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the MX570’s 96.00 GB/s. It also has a 53% higher pixel fill rate, which matters for certain rendering pipelines. The A2’s higher clocks (1770 MHz boost versus 1155 MHz) partially compensate for its fewer shaders, but not enough to overcome the MX570 in raw FP32 throughput.

For an analyst looking at the numbers, the MX570 is the superior compute engine per watt, while the A2 is the superior memory and pixel engine. Neither card is a general-purpose winner; the choice depends entirely on whether the workload is shader-limited or memory-limited.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX570 wins in scenarios that stress shader throughput and tensor/RT core counts. It has 64 tensor cores versus the A2’s 40, and 16 RT cores versus 10, making it better suited for AI inference and ray-traced workloads that use those units. Its 4.731 TFLOPS FP32 is the highest compute figure between the two, and its 73.92 GTexel/s texture rate is also slightly higher. The 15 W TDP makes it viable for ultra-portable, battery-constrained devices where power efficiency is paramount.

NVIDIA A2 wins in memory-heavy and pixel-bound tasks. The 16 GB capacity allows it to hold large model weights or datasets that would overflow the MX570’s 2 GB buffer. The 200.1 GB/s bandwidth is critical for streaming textures or large matrices, and the 56.64 GPixel/s fill rate gives it an edge in rasterization-heavy workloads. Its 60 W TDP and single-slot form factor, along with a 250 W suggested PSU, position it as a low-power server accelerator that can slot into existing infrastructure without display output requirements.

The benchmark record shows one win for the MX570 and zero for the A2 in head-to-head tests, but that single OpenCL result does not capture the A2’s memory advantages. A workload that needs 8 GB or more of VRAM would simply fail on the MX570, regardless of its compute lead. Conversely, a workload that fits in 2 GB and is shader-bound will run faster on the MX570. The data supports a simple rule: pick the MX570 for speed, pick the A2 for capacity.