NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA’s GPU design, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear transfer of performance leadership from the older Fermi-based card to the newer Maxwell-based one, despite the GTX 570 being the higher-tier product in its generation. While the GTX 570 carries a larger die and more memory bandwidth, the GTX 950 counters with higher clock speeds, a more efficient architecture, and superior API support, making the benchmark comparison a study in how transistor density and design philosophy shift performance outcomes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 scores 15,662 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 scores 13,515 points. This translates to a delta of -13.7% for the GTX 570, meaning the GTX 950 outperforms its older rival by 13.7% in this compute workload. The GTX 950’s victory is not marginal; it is a substantial lead that flips the expected hierarchy based on product tier alone.

Looking at the GTX 570’s position among its nearest rivals, its 13,515 average score places it just below the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13,536) and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (13,543), with deltas of -0.2% against both. It edges out the NVIDIA P106-090 (13,470) by 0.3% and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407) by 0.8%. These narrow margins suggest the GTX 570 is tightly clustered with a set of mid-range and mobile parts, none of which pose a serious threat to the GTX 950’s score of 15,662.

For the GTX 950, its nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 13,189 is actually lower than its OpenCL score, which is interesting because it reflects the inclusion of other benchmark results. The GTX 950’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 (13,300), which beats it by 0.8%, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (13,075) trails by 0.9%. The AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321) and AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354) are ahead by 1% and 1.2%, respectively. This means the GTX 950’s average is dragged down by its Metal score of 7,172, but its OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 15,662 and 16,734 respectively are clearly its strongest showings.

The head-to-head data shows that in pure OpenCL throughput, the GTX 950 is decisively ahead. The GTX 570’s 480 shading units and 60 texture mapping units cannot compensate for the GTX 950’s higher shader count of 768 and its ability to hit a boost clock of 1188 MHz. The older card’s 1,405.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is dwarfed by the newer card’s 1.825 TFLOPS, a gap that is directly reflected in the benchmark scores. The GTX 950’s win is not a fluke; it is a systematic advantage in raw compute throughput that the GTX 570 cannot bridge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two cards is stark. The GTX 570 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 40 nm process node. This is a large, power-hungry design: the die measures 520 mm² and houses 3,000 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 5.8M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 950 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip, built on a more advanced 28 nm process from the same foundry. Its die is substantially smaller at 228 mm², yet it packs nearly the same number of transistors at 2,940 million, achieving a transistor density of 12.9M per mm²—more than double that of the GTX 570.

This density advantage is the root cause of the performance delta. Maxwell 2.0 is designed to extract more instructions per clock from each shader, and the GTX 950’s 768 shading units outnumber the GTX 570’s 480 by a significant margin. The GTX 950 also benefits from a higher boost clock of 1188 MHz versus the GTX 570’s base clock of 950 MHz on the memory, though the GTX 570 has no listed base or boost clock for the core itself. The memory subsystems diverge as well: the GTX 570 uses a 320-bit bus with 1280 MB of GDDR5 and a bandwidth of 152.0 GB/s, while the GTX 950 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 and a bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s. The GTX 570 has more raw bandwidth, but the GTX 950’s higher effective memory speed of 6.6 Gbps versus 3.8 Gbps helps it compensate in latency-sensitive tasks.

API support is a major differentiator. The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 570 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. This means the GTX 950 can run modern Vulkan titles natively, which explains its strong Vulkan score of 16,734. The GTX 570’s older feature set caps its potential in newer software environments, even if its raw compute is competitive in legacy workloads. The GTX 950 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, whereas the GTX 570 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, which affects data transfer rates to the CPU in bandwidth-bound scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950 wins the only comparative benchmark, and it does so across multiple API environments. Its OpenCL score of 15,662 is its second-best result, while its Vulkan score of 16,734 is the highest of all benchmarks listed for either card. This suggests the GTX 950 is particularly well-suited for modern compute and graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan’s low-level access to the GPU. The card’s high pixel rate of 38.02 GPixel/s and texture rate of 57.02 GTexel/s also indicate strong fill-rate performance, which benefits games with heavy post-processing effects or high-resolution textures.

The GTX 570, despite losing the head-to-head, still has niches where its architecture shines. Its 152.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth is 43.7% higher than the GTX 950’s 105.8 GB/s, which is critical for memory-bound applications like large texture streaming or compute tasks that access the framebuffer frequently. The 320-bit bus provides a wider path for data, and while the GTX 570’s pixel rate of 21.96 GPixel/s is lower than the GTX 950’s, its 40 ROPs versus 32 ROPs gives it an advantage in certain rasterization-heavy workloads. For users running older DirectX 11 titles or OpenGL applications that do not benefit from Maxwell’s architectural improvements, the GTX 570 can still be competitive, but the data does not support it winning in any modern benchmark scenario.

The GTX 950’s power efficiency is another clear win. Its TDP is 90 W versus the GTX 570’s 219 W, and it requires only a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 250 W power supply, compared to the GTX 570’s dual 6-pin connectors and 550 W suggested PSU. This makes the GTX 950 the obvious choice for compact builds or systems with limited power delivery, and its shorter length of 202 mm versus 267 mm improves case compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The data shows the GTX 570 has a higher average benchmark score of 13,515, while the GTX 950 averages 13,189. However, this average for the GTX 950 includes a low Metal score of 7,172, which pulls its average down despite its superior OpenCL and Vulkan results.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 950 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 950 scores 15,662 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.7% higher than the GTX 570’s 13,515. This is the only head-to-head benchmark provided, and it clearly favors the GTX 950.

Q: Does the GTX 570 have any advantages in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the GTX 570 has a memory bandwidth of 152.0 GB/s, which is significantly higher than the GTX 950’s 105.8 GB/s. This is due to its wider 320-bit bus versus the GTX 950’s 128-bit bus.

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

A: The GTX 950 has a transistor density of 12.9M per mm², which is more than double the GTX 570’s 5.8M per mm². This is because the GTX 950 uses a 28 nm process versus the GTX 570’s 40 nm process, allowing it to pack 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die versus 3,000 million into 520 mm².

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GTX 950 lists Vulkan 1.4 support. The GTX 570 has no Vulkan support listed in the data, which limits its compatibility with modern games and applications that rely on this API.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W and requires a 250 W power supply, while the GTX 570 has a TDP of 219 W and requires a 550 W power supply. The GTX 950 also uses a single 6-pin connector, whereas the GTX 570 needs two 6-pin connectors.

The Verdict

The data makes a compelling case for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 as the superior card in almost every measurable way. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 13.7%, offers modern API support including Vulkan 1.4, and does so at a fraction of the power draw—90 W versus 219 W. The GTX 950’s average score of 13,189 is misleading because it is skewed by a single low Metal benchmark; its OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 15,662 and 16,734 are both far above the GTX 570’s best result. For any user prioritizing raw performance in current software, the GTX 950 is the clear choice.

The GTX 570 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow. Its higher memory bandwidth of 152.0 GB/s and larger 40 ROP count could be beneficial in specific legacy workloads or memory-intensive compute tasks, but the data does not show these advantages translating into a benchmark win. The GTX 570’s percentile rank of 54 versus the GTX 950’s 53 is essentially a tie, but the GTX 950’s higher peak scores and better efficiency tip the balance decisively. The GTX 570’s launch MSRP was 349 USD, while the GTX 950’s was 159 USD, but pricing does not factor into the performance analysis.

For a user with an older system that relies on PCIe 2.0 and DirectX 11, the GTX 570 might still function, but it is an end-of-life product with no future-proofing. The GTX 950, with its PCIe 3.0 interface and DirectX 12_1 support, is built to handle a wider range of modern workloads. The verdict is clear: the GTX 950 is the better GPU across the available data, offering higher compute throughput, better API compatibility, and substantially lower power requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GF110 | GM206 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 228 mm² |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 2,940 million |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 12.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1280 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 105.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 480 | 768 |

| TMUs | 60 | 48 |

| ROPs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.96 GPixel/s | 38.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 43.92 GTexel/s | 57.02 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,405.4 GFLOPS | 1.825 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 219 W | 90 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Length | 267 mm | 202 mm |

| Memory Clock | 950 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Base Clock | N/A | 1024 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 1188 MHz |

| Launch MSRP | 349 USD | 159 USD |