NVIDIA CMP 70HX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two GPUs, with the NVIDIA CMP 70HX taking the OpenCL test and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A countering in Vulkan. In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 70HX scores 41,446 against the MX570 A's 39,780, a 4% advantage that reflects the mining card's larger compute footprint. The margin is modest in percentage terms, but the raw gap of 1,666 points places the CMP 70HX ahead in workloads that scale with raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth.

The MX570 A answers back in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 36,236 against the CMP 70HX's 35,003. That 3.5% swing (a 1,233-point difference) is notable because the MX570 A is the smaller chip on paper — fewer shading units, fewer texture units, and a fraction of the memory bandwidth. Yet in a graphics API test, it outruns a card built for compute-heavy mining tasks. This suggests that the CMP 70HX's architecture, stripped of display outputs and tuned for sustained computational loads, does not translate its hardware advantage into a universal win.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the average benchmark scores nearly converge. The CMP 70HX averages 38,225, while the MX570 A sits at 38,008 — a 0.6% delta in favor of the mining card. Both GPUs land in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite wildly different designs. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the CMP 70HX is 0.2% ahead of the GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile, 0.3% behind the RTX 5080 Mobile, and 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT. The MX570 A trails the same trio by 0.3%, 0.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. In practical terms, these are all within a rounding error of each other — the deltaPct values never exceed 1% against any named rival.

One interpretation of the split results: OpenCL leans on the CMP 70HX's raw FP32 compute (10.71 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS) and its enormous bandwidth advantage (608.3 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s). Vulkan, by contrast, may favor the MX570 A's more balanced feature set and the fact that it was designed for general graphics workloads, even if its pixel rate (36.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (73.92 GTexel/s) are roughly half the CMP 70HX's figures (89.28 GPixel/s and 167.4 GTexel/s).

The data shows a 1-1 split in the head-to-head, with each card winning exactly one benchmark. The CMP 70HX's OpenCL lead is larger in absolute terms (4% versus 3.5%), but the Vulkan result for the MX570 A is arguably more impressive given its hardware handicap. The MX570 A also benefits from a higher boost clock efficiency story: its boost clock (1155 MHz) is lower than the CMP 70HX's (1395 MHz), yet it still wins a graphics test. That points to architectural efficiency rather than raw clock speed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture and fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process, but that is where the similarities end. The MX570 A uses the GA107SB chip, a compact die measuring 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors. The CMP 70HX employs the GA104, nearly twice the size at 392 mm² with 17,400 million transistors. Transistor density is almost identical — 43.5 million per mm² for the MX570 A versus 44.4 million per mm² for the CMP 70HX — indicating that the process node is being used with similar efficiency, but the CMP 70HX simply has more silicon to work with.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The CMP 70HX packs 3,840 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, while the MX570 A offers 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: 30 on the CMP 70HX versus 16 on the MX570 A. Tensor cores scale accordingly, with 120 on the larger chip and 64 on the smaller one. These are not incremental differences — the CMP 70HX has roughly double the shading capacity, double the texture throughput, and double the pixel output.

Memory configuration is the starkest contrast. The MX570 A comes with 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 70HX uses 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.3 GB/s — a 6.3x bandwidth advantage. Memory clocks also differ: the MX570 A runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the CMP 70HX runs at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The CMP 70HX's use of GDDR6X, a faster memory type, is a key differentiator for mining workloads that are often bandwidth-bound.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The CMP 70HX has a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1395 MHz, both higher than the MX570 A's 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the MX570 A's FP32 output of 4.731 TFLOPS is less than half the CMP 70HX's 10.71 TFLOPS — consistent with the shading unit count. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both cards (1:1 ratio), so there is no half-precision advantage to exploit.

The physical and interface differences are just as pronounced. The MX570 A is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output. The CMP 70HX is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requiring a 1x 12-pin power connector and a suggested 200 W power supply. Crucially, the CMP 70HX has no display outputs at all — it is a mining-focused card. The bus interfaces also differ: the MX570 A uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the CMP 70HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a legacy interface that is adequate for mining but unusual for a modern card.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator. The MX570 A was released on 2021-12-16, while the CMP 70HX has no listed release date. Both are marked end-of-life in production status.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The CMP 70HX is the stronger compute card: it wins OpenCL by 4%, has over twice the FP32 throughput, and offers 6.3x the memory bandwidth. For anyone running bandwidth-hungry or massively parallel workloads, the CMP 70HX is the obvious choice from these benchmark results. Its 8 GB of GDDR6X memory and 256-bit bus are designed for sustained throughput, and the OpenCL score confirms that design intent.

The MX570 A is the more balanced graphics solution, despite its smaller hardware. It wins Vulkan by 3.5%, a result that cannot be explained by raw specs — the CMP 70HX has more of everything except a display output and a modern PCIe interface. The MX570 A's win suggests that its architecture, paired with a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection and integrated design, is better suited for graphics API workloads. The fact that it achieves a nearly identical average benchmark score (38,008 versus 38,225) with a 25 W TDP design (the CMP 70HX has no listed TDP) is remarkable.

For gaming or general-purpose graphics use, the MX570 A is the only viable pick, simply because the CMP 70HX has no display outputs. For compute tasks where graphics output is irrelevant, the CMP 70HX's OpenCL lead and memory bandwidth make it the better choice. The 81st percentile ranking for both cards masks a fundamental split: they are peers in aggregate benchmarks but serve entirely different workloads. The data does not support a universal winner — it supports a workload-dependent decision.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A | NVIDIA CMP 70HX |

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

| Chip | GA107SB | GA104 |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 17,400 million |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 832 MHz | 1365 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1155 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) | 1188 MHz (19 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 608.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 64 | 120 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 30 |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | 120 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 89.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 167.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.731 TFLOPS | 10.71 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.731 TFLOPS | 10.71 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 25 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 in) x 112 mm (4.4 in) |

| Release Date | 2021-12-16 | Not listed |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 70HX scores 38,225 on average, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A scores 38,008 — a 0.6% difference in favor of the CMP 70HX.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in specific benchmark tests?

A: The CMP 70HX wins Geekbench OpenCL with 41,446 versus 39,780 (a 4% lead), while the MX570 A wins Geekbench Vulkan with 36,236 versus 35,003 (a 3.5% lead). Each GPU takes one benchmark.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The MX570 A has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 608.3 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 70HX also uses faster memory at 19 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps effective.

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

A: No. The CMP 70HX has no display outputs, while the MX570 A's display output is portable-device dependent. The CMP 70HX is designed for mining workloads.

Q: How does each GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile?

A: The CMP 70HX is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile, while the MX570 A is 0.3% behind it. Both deltas are within 1%, indicating near-identical aggregate performance.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for both GPUs?

A: Both the MX570 A and the CMP 70HX rank in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, placing them in the same overall performance tier.