NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different NVIDIA generations, separated by over four years of architectural evolution. The GTX 965M, a Maxwell 2.0 part from the GeForce 900M series, edges out the older Fermi 2.0-based GTX 570 in the only available head-to-head benchmark, posting a 7.4% higher Geekbench OpenCL score. However, the GTX 570 was a desktop flagship in its day, while the GTX 965M is a mobile MXM module, so the comparison reflects not just generational progress but also the performance-per-watt gains that allowed a laptop part to surpass a power-hungry desktop card.

The Verdict

The data points to the GTX 965M as the stronger overall performer in raw compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 14,509 beats the GTX 570’s 13,515 by 7.4%, and the 965M also achieves a higher average benchmark score of 14,404 versus 13,515. The 965M ranks in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 570 sits at the 54th percentile. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in a modern, power-efficient package, the GTX 965M is the clear choice from the benchmark numbers alone.

The GTX 570, however, retains advantages in memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. Its 152.0 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double the 965M’s 80.19 GB/s, and its 40 ROPs outnumber the 965M’s 32. The GTX 570 also has a wider 320-bit memory bus versus 128-bit on the 965M. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth-bound or fill-rate-limited, the older card could still hold its own despite losing the compute benchmark. That said, the 965M’s newer architecture, support for DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the GTX 570’s DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 support (the GTX 570 has no Vulkan entry) make it the more future-proof option.

Pick the GTX 965M if you want the better compute score, modern API support, and a mobile form factor. Pick the GTX 570 only if your workload specifically rewards its massive memory bandwidth and higher ROP count, and you can tolerate its 219 W TDP and dual-slot size.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 965M wins decisively in compute-oriented tasks. Its 1.946 TFLOPS of FP32 performance crushes the GTX 570’s 1,405.4 GFLOPS, representing a 38.5% advantage in raw floating-point throughput. This shows up directly in the Geekbench OpenCL result, where the 965M leads by 7.4%. The 965M also has more shading units (1,024 vs 480) and more TMUs (64 vs 60), and its texture rate of 60.80 GTexel/s beats the GTX 570’s 43.92 GTexel/s by nearly 38%.

The GTX 570 fights back in memory-centric metrics. Its 152.0 GB/s bandwidth is 89.5% higher than the 965M’s 80.19 GB/s. The pixel rate also favors the GTX 570, but only marginally in practical terms: 21.96 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s actually goes the other way — the 965M wins pixel rate by 38.4%. The GTX 570’s ROP count of 40 is higher, but the 965M’s higher clock-derived pixel rate compensates. So the GTX 570’s genuine win is memory bandwidth alone, which could benefit large texture loads or high-resolution framebuffer operations.

In the broader benchmark landscape, the 965M sits among integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (0.1% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (0.2% slower), and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (0.6% slower). The GTX 570, meanwhile, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (0.2% faster), AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (0.2% faster), and NVIDIA P106-090 (0.3% slower). This placement shows both cards are in a similar performance tier, but the 965M sits slightly higher within that tier.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The GTX 570 uses the GF110 chip on TSMC’s 40 nm process, with 3,000 million transistors spread across a larger 520 mm² die, giving a lower density of 5.8 million per mm². The 28 nm node’s finer geometry is a key reason the 965M achieves higher performance with far lower power draw — the GTX 570 is rated at 219 W TDP, while the 965M has no listed TDP but uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, indicating a much more modest power envelope.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 570 has 1280 MB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, running at 950 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective), yielding 152.0 GB/s. The GTX 570’s wider bus and higher bandwidth are classic Fermi traits, prioritizing memory throughput over transistor efficiency.

Architecturally, the 965M is Maxwell 2.0, which introduced significant improvements in geometry processing and power management over Fermi 2.0. The GTX 570’s Fermi 2.0 lacks Vulkan support entirely, while the 965M supports Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the 965M’s DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level is higher than the GTX 570’s (11_0). The 965M’s 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs vastly outnumber the GTX 570’s 480 shading units and 60 TMUs, enabled by the denser 28 nm process.

Physical and interface differences are stark. The GTX 965M is an MXM-B (3.0) module, 267 mm long (10.5 inches), dual-slot, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU, with display outputs limited to 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The GTX 965M is a portable-device-dependent MXM module with no fixed dimensions, no power connectors, and display outputs that depend on the host laptop. The GTX 570’s release date was December 2010, while the 965M came in January 2015, and the 965M’s successor is GeForce 10 Mobile, whereas the GTX 570’s successor is GeForce 600.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 965M. Its FP32 rating of 1.946 TFLOPS exceeds the GTX 570’s 1,405.4 GFLOPS, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test 14,509 to 13,515 (7.4% higher).

Q: Does the GTX 570 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in memory bandwidth. The GTX 570 delivers 152.0 GB/s versus the 965M’s 80.19 GB/s, a 89.5% advantage. It also has a wider 320-bit memory bus and more ROPs (40 vs 32).

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 965M. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 570 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the GTX 570’s launch price?

A: The GTX 570 had a launch MSRP of 349 USD. The GTX 965M has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 965M’s average score of 14,404 is 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385) and 0.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373). The GTX 570’s average of 13,515 is 0.2% lower than the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13,536) and 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA P106-090 (13,470).

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The data implies the GTX 965M. It uses an MXM module with no power connectors, while the GTX 570 requires 2x 6-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU with a 219 W TDP. No TDP is listed for the 965M, but its connector-free design indicates far lower power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the GTX 965M wins decisively. The 965M scores 14,509 against the GTX 570’s 13,515, a 7.4% delta. This margin, while not enormous, is consistent across the broader performance picture: the 965M’s average benchmark score of 14,404 is 6.6% higher than the GTX 570’s 13,515.

Digging into the compute reasons, the 965M’s FP32 throughput of 1.946 TFLOPS is 38.5% higher than the GTX 570’s 1,405.4 GFLOPS. The shading unit count more than doubles (1,024 vs 480), and the texture rate is 38.4% higher (60.80 vs 43.92 GTexel/s). Even the pixel rate favors the 965M at 30.40 GPixel/s versus 21.96 GPixel/s, a 38.4% lead. These numbers suggest the 965M should have won by a larger margin than 7.4%, but the GTX 570’s memory bandwidth advantage (152.0 vs 80.19 GB/s) likely narrows the gap in real-world OpenCL workloads that tax memory bandwidth heavily.

The GTX 570’s only clear winning metric is memory bandwidth, where it leads by 89.5%. Its 40 ROPs also exceed the 965M’s 32, but the 965M’s higher clock-derived pixel rate negates that ROP advantage in practice. The GTX 570’s 3.8 Gbps effective memory speed is slower than the 965M’s 5 Gbps, but the 320-bit bus compensates with sheer width. For a hypothetical fill-rate-bound benchmark, the 965M still wins due to pixel rate; for a bandwidth-bound benchmark, the GTX 570 would likely take the lead.

In the percentile rankings, the 965M’s 56th percentile places it slightly above the GTX 570’s 54th, reinforcing the 7.4% benchmark win as the primary differentiator. Both cards are end-of-life, but the 965M’s newer architecture and API support give it a longer practical lifespan in modern applications. The GTX 570’s 219 W TDP and dual-slot requirement make it a poor fit for anything but a desktop with ample power headroom, while the 965M’s MXM form factor targets laptops where efficiency is paramount. The data is clear: the GTX 965M is the better overall GPU, with the GTX 570 holding only a memory-bandwidth niche.