NVIDIA CMP 70HX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

The GeForce MX570 and the CMP 70HX are both Ampere-based NVIDIA GPUs, but they occupy vastly different corners of the market. The MX570 is a low-power mobile chip designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the CMP 70HX is a dual-slot desktop card built for a single purpose: mining. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural chasm between the two is far more interesting than the raw score difference suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is in Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a decisive victory for the CMP 70HX. The mining card scores 41,446 points, while the MX570 trails at 38,494 points. This translates to a 7.1% delta, placing the CMP 70HX firmly ahead in raw compute throughput. While a 7.1% margin is not enormous, it is consistent across the architecture's capabilities, as the CMP 70HX's larger silicon and higher power envelope provide a substantial advantage in sustained workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the MX570's single OpenCL score of 38,494 places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in that test are the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT at 38,358 points (a 0.4% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at 38,349 points (also a 0.4% delta). This is a remarkable data point: the MX570, a 15-watt IGP-class chip, is essentially trading blows with flagship desktop and high-end mobile parts in this specific compute test. The data suggests that Geekbench OpenCL is not heavily weighted toward memory bandwidth or raw shader count, which allows the MX570 to punch above its weight class.

The CMP 70HX, in contrast, has an average benchmark score of 38,225 across its two tests, which places it in the 81st percentile. Its nearest rival in the average score comparison is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile at 38,135 points, a mere 0.2% delta. Interestingly, the CMP 70HX's own OpenCL score of 41,446 is significantly higher than its Vulkan score of 35,003, indicating a substantial performance variance depending on the API. The 7.1% gap between the two cards in OpenCL is the headline figure, but the CMP 70HX's Vulkan score is 9.1% lower than its OpenCL result, suggesting that its architecture is optimized for specific compute patterns rather than general-purpose graphics rendering.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental difference lies in the silicon itself. The MX570 uses the GA107S chip, while the CMP 70HX is built on the GA104. Both are fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process, but the GA104 is a much larger and more complex die. The CMP 70HX packs 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The MX570, by contrast, contains only 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The density figures are nearly identical, confirming they are from the same process generation, but the CMP 70HX has exactly double the transistor count and nearly double the die area.

This transistor budget translates directly into compute resources. The CMP 70HX features 3,840 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The MX570 is cut down to 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The CMP 70HX also carries 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores, versus 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores on the MX570. In every single execution unit count, the CMP 70HX has roughly 1.9x the resources of the MX570.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The MX570 has a base clock of 832 MHz and a boost clock of 1155 MHz. The CMP 70HX runs significantly faster, with a base of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1395 MHz. The MX570's low clocks are a direct consequence of its 15-watt TDP, which is a fraction of the CMP 70HX's power draw (the CMP 70HX's TDP is not listed, but it requires a 200-watt power supply). The CMP 70HX's higher clocks, combined with its larger execution unit count, produce a theoretical FP32 throughput of 10.71 TFLOPS, more than double the MX570's 4.731 TFLOPS. Both cards offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the CMP 70HX also leads there by the same margin.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of two specialized tools. The CMP 70HX wins in raw compute performance. Its 7.1% lead in OpenCL, its 2.26x advantage in FP32 throughput, and its 6.3x advantage in memory bandwidth (608.3 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s) make it the obvious choice for any workload that saturates the GPU. The 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus versus the MX570's 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus is a chasm, not a gap. The CMP 70HX is designed for sustained, memory-intensive compute tasks, and its specifications reflect that focus.

The MX570 wins in the mobility and efficiency domain, though the data does not directly measure power consumption beyond the 15-watt TDP. The MX570 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a bus interface of PCIe 4.0 x8. The CMP 70HX, meanwhile, is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, requiring a 12-pin power connector and a 200-watt power supply, and it has no display outputs whatsoever. The MX570's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it can drive screens in laptops, while the CMP 70HX cannot output video at all. For a portable device, the MX570 is the only viable option; the CMP 70HX physically cannot function in that role.

In the benchmark arena, the MX570's single OpenCL score of 38,494 puts it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT and the RTX 5080 Mobile. This suggests that in short-duration compute bursts, the MX570 can hold its own against far more powerful cards, likely due to its efficient Ampere architecture and the specific nature of the OpenCL workload. The CMP 70HX's average score of 38,225 is lower than its OpenCL peak, dragged down by its Vulkan result. This implies the CMP 70HX is less consistent across different APIs, while the MX570, with only one benchmark result, shows no such variance.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The process node is identical (8 nm Samsung), but the chip design is entirely different: GA107S for the MX570 versus GA104 for the CMP 70HX. Transistor counts are 8,700 million versus 17,400 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 392 mm². Clock speeds favor the CMP 70HX, with a base of 1365 MHz and boost of 1395 MHz, versus 832 MHz and 1155 MHz on the MX570. Memory is a major differentiator: the MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The bus width jumps from 64-bit to 256-bit, and bandwidth from 96.00 GB/s to 608.3 GB/s.

Execution unit counts are uniformly higher on the CMP 70HX: 3,840 shading units versus 2,048, 120 TMUs versus 64, 64 ROPs versus 32, 30 RT cores versus 16, and 120 tensor cores versus 64. Pixel rate is 89.28 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 167.4 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance both sit at 10.71 TFLOPS on the CMP 70HX versus 4.731 TFLOPS on the MX570. The TDP is listed as 15 W for the MX570 and null for the CMP 70HX, though the suggested PSU of 200 W for the latter indicates a massive power envelope difference. The MX570 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the CMP 70HX is dual-slot with a single 12-pin connector. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 on the MX570 versus PCIe 1.0 x4 on the CMP 70HX — a curious pairing that suggests the mining card does not require high host bandwidth. Display outputs are present (portable device dependent) on the MX570 and absent on the CMP 70HX. The MX570's release date is December 2021; the CMP 70HX has no release date listed. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are end-of-life. The MX570's dimensions are not listed, while the CMP 70HX is 267 mm long and 112 mm high.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX570 has an average benchmark score of 38,494, while the CMP 70HX has an average of 38,225. The MX570 leads by a slim margin of 0.7% based on averages, though the CMP 70HX wins the sole head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: How much faster is the CMP 70HX in the direct comparison?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the CMP 70HX scores 41,446 versus the MX570's 38,494, a 7.1% delta in favor of the CMP 70HX.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: No. The MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 608.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the CMP 70HX be used for display output?

A: No. The CMP 70HX has no display outputs, whereas the MX570's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The MX570 (GA107S) has a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm², while the CMP 70HX (GA104) has a density of 44.4 million per mm² — a negligible 0.9M/mm² difference.

Q: Which GPU requires more power from the system?

A: The CMP 70HX requires a 200 W power supply and uses a 12-pin power connector, while the MX570 has a 15 W TDP and uses no power connectors, drawing power entirely from its IGP slot.