NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by six years of architecture evolution and aimed at entirely different use cases. The Quadro M6000 is a professional workstation card from 2015, built on the massive Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a 601 mm² die, while the MX570 A is a low-power Ampere mobile chip from 2021, designed for thin-and-light laptops. Despite their differences, both end up with surprisingly close average benchmark scores: the Quadro M6000 averages 43301 across its two tests, while the MX570 A averages 38691. This puts the Quadro at the 84th percentile of all GPUs and the MX570 A at the 81st percentile, meaning both sit in a similar performance tier overall, but the way they achieve those scores could not be more different. The data shows a classic split: one card dominates compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while the other pulls far ahead in graphics API performance.

Where Each One Wins

The MX570 A wins the OpenCL benchmark, scoring 39780 against the Quadro M6000’s 39688. That is a razor-thin margin of just 0.2%, effectively a tie in compute throughput. What makes this interesting is the hardware behind it: the MX570 A does this with 2048 shading units running at a boost clock of 1155 MHz on a 64-bit memory bus, while the Quadro M6000 uses 3072 shading units at 1114 MHz with a 384-bit bus. The MX570 A’s Ampere architecture brings 64 tensor cores and 16 RT cores to the table, along with FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which likely helps it keep pace in modern compute workloads despite having fewer shaders. The Quadro M6000, by contrast, has no tensor or RT cores and no FP16 support listed, relying purely on raw Maxwell FP32 throughput of 6.844 TFLOPS versus the MX570 A’s 4.731 TFLOPS. Yet the OpenCL scores are nearly identical, suggesting the MX570 A’s architectural efficiency and possibly driver optimizations close the gap.

The Quadro M6000 wins decisively in the Vulkan benchmark, scoring 46913 against the MX570 A’s 37601, a massive 24.8% advantage. This is where the Quadro’s professional workstation pedigree shows. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that stresses raw geometry throughput, memory bandwidth, and rasterization capability, and the Quadro has the hardware for that in spades: 192 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, and 317.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The MX570 A, with 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, simply cannot keep up in this scenario. The Quadro also has a much larger 12 GB frame buffer compared to the MX570 A’s 2 GB, which matters for large scenes and high-resolution textures. While the MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) with hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), but that does not help in this particular Vulkan test.

The Verdict

If your workload leans toward modern graphics APIs like Vulkan, the Quadro M6000 is the clear choice. Its 24.8% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is substantial and reflects its superior memory subsystem and rasterization hardware. The 12 GB frame buffer is also a practical advantage for professional visualization, large CAD models, or any application that needs to hold a lot of data on the GPU. The Quadro’s 84th percentile ranking versus the MX570 A’s 81st also confirms it sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

If your work is more compute-oriented, the choice is less clear. The MX570 A matches the Quadro in OpenCL performance, scoring 39780 versus 39688, a difference of only 0.2%. Given that the MX570 A consumes just 25 W compared to the Quadro’s 250 W, it achieves that compute parity at one-tenth the power draw. That efficiency is remarkable. The MX570 A is also a much smaller chip, with an 8 nm Samsung process versus the Quadro’s 28 nm TSMC node, and it includes modern features like tensor cores and RT cores that the Quadro completely lacks.

The real deciding factor is the platform and workload. The Quadro M6000 is a dual-slot, 267 mm PCIe 3.0 x16 card requiring a 600 W power supply and an 8-pin connector, designed for desktop workstations. The MX570 A is an IGP (integrated GPU) with no power connectors, designed for portable devices, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. They are not interchangeable. The Quadro is for a fixed workstation that needs maximum graphics API performance and large memory. The MX570 A is for a laptop where compute capability matters but power and space are at a premium. Benchmark results indicate that the Quadro wins on graphics, the MX570 A ties on compute, and the MX570 A wins on efficiency and portability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Geekbench tests tell a clear story of specialization. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX570 A scores 39780, edging out the Quadro M6000’s 39688 by 0.2%. This is effectively a statistical tie, but it is notable that a 25 W laptop chip with 2048 shaders can match a 250 W workstation card with 3072 shaders. The MX570 A’s 4.731 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is lower than the Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS, yet the OpenCL scores are nearly identical, suggesting that the MX570 A’s newer architecture extracts more useful work per FLOP, possibly through better scheduling, the tensor cores handling some operations, or more efficient memory access patterns.

The Vulkan benchmark is where the Quadro M6000 asserts its dominance. The Quadro scores 46913 to the MX570 A’s 37601, a delta of 24.8%. This is not a close contest. The Quadro’s 317.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth is over three times the MX570 A’s 96.00 GB/s, and its 96 ROPs triple the MX570 A’s 32. This gives the Quadro a massive advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, which is exactly what Vulkan tends to stress. The Quadro’s pixel rate of 106.9 GPixel/s versus the MX570 A’s 36.96 GPixel/s further confirms this gap. In practical terms, if you are running a Vulkan-based game or a professional application that uses Vulkan for rendering, the Quadro will deliver noticeably higher frame rates or faster scene rendering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43301, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A averages 38691. The Quadro M6000 sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX570 A is at the 81st percentile.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX570 A has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card wins in the Vulkan benchmark and by how much?

A: The Quadro M6000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 46913 versus the MX570 A’s 37601, a 24.8% advantage.

Q: Are the OpenCL scores similar?

A: Yes, the MX570 A scores 39780 in Geekbench OpenCL, just 0.2% ahead of the Quadro M6000’s 39688, making them effectively equal in that workload.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP, is a dual-slot card, requires a 600 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 8-pin power connector. The MX570 A has a 25 W TDP, is an IGP with no power connectors, and does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The MX570 A includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the Quadro M6000 has none. The MX570 A also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors onto a 601 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. This is a classic high-end workstation chip from 2015, designed to be big, power-hungry, and massively parallel. It has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware.

The MX570 A uses the GA107SB chip on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter, more than three times the Quadro’s density. This density is the result of six years of process node improvements. The Ampere architecture brings 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features like DLSS. It also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which the Quadro does not list. The MX570 A has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, far fewer than the Quadro, but each unit is more efficient.

The memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, while the MX570 A uses GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the MX570 A’s is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The wider bus gives the Quadro a massive bandwidth advantage, but the newer GDDR6 technology allows the MX570 A to achieve respectable bandwidth with far fewer pins and lower power.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro M6000 has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz, while the MX570 A runs at 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. The Quadro has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, the MX570 A has 2 GB of GDDR6. The Quadro’s memory bus is 384-bit with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth; the MX570 A’s is 64-bit with 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs; the MX570 A has 2048, 64, and 32 respectively. The Quadro has no RT or tensor cores; the MX570 A has 16 and 64.

Performance rates reflect these differences: the Quadro achieves 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s, while the MX570 A achieves 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 4.731 TFLOPS for the MX570 A. Power consumption is 250 W for the Quadro versus 25 W for the MX570 A. The Quadro is dual-slot, 267 mm long, and 111 mm tall, with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The MX570 A is an IGP with no dimensions listed, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX570 A uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ too: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the MX570 A’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), the MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro was released on 2015-03-20, while the MX570 A came out on 2021-12-16. The Quadro’s production status is end-of-life, as is the MX570 A’s.