NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX holds a significantly higher average benchmark score of 51,790 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570's 38,299.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the CMP 50HX scores 56,135 versus the MX570's 38,299, which represents a 46.6% advantage for the CMP 50HX.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the CMP 50HX and the MX570 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The CMP 50HX comes with 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, while the MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density despite being on a larger process node?

A: The MX570, built on Samsung's 8 nm process, achieves a transistor density of 43.5M per mm², whereas the CMP 50HX on TSMC's 12 nm process has a density of 24.7M per mm².

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the CMP 50HX and the MX570 are marked as end-of-life products in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA GPUs represent entirely different architectural generations and design philosophies. The CMP 50HX is built on the Turing architecture using the TU102 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. This is a large, power-hungry die measuring 754 mm² with 18,600 million transistors. In contrast, the MX570 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107S chip, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a much smaller 200 mm² die.

The transistor density tells a compelling story about process efficiency. The MX570's 8 nm node achieves 43.5M transistors per mm², which is 76% denser than the CMP 50HX's 24.7M per mm² on 12 nm. Despite being on an older process, the CMP 50HX compensates with sheer die size, offering more than double the total transistor count.

Compute resource allocation differs dramatically between the two. The CMP 50HX features 3,584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. It also includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, reflecting Turing's ray tracing and AI acceleration capabilities. The MX570, while newer, is far more modest: 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. The CMP 50HX has 75% more shading units, 3x the TMUs, and 2.5x the ROPs.

Clock speeds follow the power envelope. The CMP 50HX runs at a 1350 MHz base clock and 1545 MHz boost, while the MX570 operates at a much lower 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. However, the MX570's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) compared to the CMP 50HX's 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), though the latter's massive 320-bit bus versus the MX570's 64-bit bus creates an enormous bandwidth disparity.

Thermal design power tells the clearest story of intended use: the CMP 50HX draws 250 W and requires dual-slot cooling with 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the MX570 is an integrated-class part at just 15 W with no power connectors and an IGP form factor. The CMP 50HX also has no display outputs, as it is purpose-built for mining, whereas the MX570's outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one shared benchmark test between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisively in favor of the CMP 50HX, which scores 56,135 against the MX570's 38,299. This represents a 46.6% performance advantage, a massive gap that reflects the fundamental differences in compute resources, memory bandwidth, and power allocation.

To contextualize the CMP 50HX's score, its average benchmark result of 51,790 places it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50,951 (1.6% lower), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 50,001 (3.6% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49,957 (3.7% lower), and the Intel Arc A550M at 49,737 (4.1% lower). The CMP 50HX sits just above this cluster, indicating that despite its mining-focused design, its raw compute throughput remains competitive with high-end gaming graphics cards from various generations.

The MX570's 38,299 average score places it at the 81st percentile, which is surprisingly high given its modest specifications. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at 38,349 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile at 38,135 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38,691 (1% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at 38,706 (1.1% higher). The MX570 essentially trades blows with these mobile and workstation parts, showing that its efficiency-focused architecture delivers respectable compute performance within a 15 W envelope.

The 46.6% delta in OpenCL performance is the single data point that defines this comparison. In raw compute throughput, the CMP 50HX's FP32 rating of 11.07 TFLOPS dwarfs the MX570's 4.731 TFLOPS, a 134% advantage. The CMP 50HX also offers FP16 performance of 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the MX570 provides 4.731 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the CMP 50HX has nearly 4.7x the half-precision throughput.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category recorded in the database.

Process and Die: The CMP 50HX uses a 12 nm TSMC process with an 18,600 million transistor count on a 754 mm² die. The MX570 uses an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density: 24.7M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Clocks: The CMP 50HX has a 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. The MX570 has an 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory Subsystem: The CMP 50HX has 10 GB GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX570 has 2 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 448 tensor cores. The MX570 has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores.

Performance Rates: The CMP 50HX delivers 123.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and 296.6 GTexel/s texture rate. The MX570 delivers 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32: 11.07 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS. FP16: 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and Physical: The CMP 50HX has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 8-pin power connectors, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The MX570 has a 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The CMP 50HX measures 267 mm x 116 mm x 35 mm; the MX570 has no recorded dimensions.

Interface and Outputs: The CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4 with no display outputs. The MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with portable device dependent outputs.

Release: The CMP 50HX launched on June 23, 2021, while the MX570 launched on December 16, 2021.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA CMP 50HX is the overwhelmingly faster GPU in raw compute benchmarks. Its 46.6% OpenCL advantage over the MX570, combined with a 51,790 average score that ranks at the 86th percentile, places it in a different performance class entirely. The CMP 50HX's nearest rivals are desktop gaming flagships like the Radeon RX 6900 XT and RTX 5070 Ti, which it edges out by 1.6% and 3.7% respectively. For anyone prioritizing compute throughput above all else, the CMP 50HX is the clear choice from the recorded data.

However, the MX570's profile tells a different story. At 15 W TDP with no power connectors and an IGP form factor, it is designed for ultra-portable devices where power efficiency is paramount. Its 81st percentile ranking, achieved despite having only 2 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, demonstrates that the Ampere architecture on 8 nm delivers remarkable performance per watt. The MX570's nearest rivals include mobile RTX 5080 and RTX 4080 variants, with deltas under 0.5%, meaning it trades blows with premium laptop GPUs despite its entry-level positioning.

The deciding factor between these two GPUs is not performance alone but physical and electrical requirements. The CMP 50HX demands 250 W, dual-slot cooling, two 8-pin connectors, and a 600 W power supply. It has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any conventional desktop use case. The MX570 requires none of that infrastructure, operating within the thermal and power constraints of a laptop or compact portable device.

Buyers who need maximum compute capacity in a desktop mining rig should select the CMP 50HX, as its 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 and 560.0 GB/s bandwidth provide the throughput necessary for heavy parallel workloads. Buyers who need a low-power GPU for a portable system should select the MX570, accepting its lower absolute scores in exchange for a design that fits into the tightest power budgets. The recorded data contains no scenario where the MX570 outperforms the CMP 50HX in raw speed, so the choice comes down entirely to form factor and power constraints rather than benchmark results.