NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the story is more nuanced than simple score comparisons. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, a professional workstation behemoth from 2016, dominates in raw compute, while the MX570 A, a 2021 mobile chip, counters with modern features and efficiency. This analysis explores what the benchmark results actually mean for potential users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous about the overall winner. Across the two head-to-head tests, the Quadro M6000 24 GB secures victory in both, establishing a decisive 2–0 win record. The most striking result comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 46,425 against the MX570 A’s 37,601. This represents a massive 23.5% performance advantage, a gap that speaks to the substantial difference in raw processing power between these two GPUs.

The OpenCL results paint a closer picture, though the outcome remains the same. The Quadro M6000 24 GB posts a score of 40,098, narrowly edging out the MX570 A’s 39,780. The delta here is just 0.8%, which is within the margin of statistical noise for most benchmarking scenarios. This near-tie in OpenCL is intriguing, as it suggests that the MX570 A’s modern architecture can partially compensate for its smaller silicon in certain compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Quadro M6000 24 GB achieves an average benchmark score of 43,262 across all tests, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, scores 43,268, a delta of 0%, meaning the Quadro effectively trades blows with a much newer mobile GPU. The MX570 A, by contrast, averages 38,691, putting it in the 81st percentile. Its nearest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro 580X, scores 38,706, again a 0% delta. This tells us that while the MX570 A is a capable performer in its class, it occupies a significantly lower performance tier than the Quadro.

The Vulkan result is the single most important data point. A 23.5% lead in a modern, low-level graphics API suggests that the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s sheer compute resources—its 3072 shading units and 96 ROPs—provide a fundamental advantage that architecture improvements alone cannot overcome. The 0.8% OpenCL margin, however, hints that the MX570 A’s Ampere design, with its dedicated tensor and RT cores, might be more efficient at certain types of parallel workloads, even if it loses on overall throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The Quadro M6000 24 GB is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM200 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a massive die, measuring 601 mm² and housing 8,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The MX570 A, in contrast, uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107SB chip, produced on Samsung’s 8 nm process. Its die is a mere 200 mm², but it packs 8,700 million transistors, achieving a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter—more than three times the density of the Maxwell chip.

Memory configurations differ dramatically. The Quadro M6000 24 GB features 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s. The MX570 A is limited to just 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, resulting in only 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 3.3x difference in raw bandwidth, which has direct implications for memory-bound workloads. The Quadro’s memory clock is listed as 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the MX570 A’s is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference completely overshadows the clock speed advantage of the newer memory type.

Compute resources follow a similar pattern. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MX570 A has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Critically, the MX570 A introduces 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores—hardware that the Maxwell-based Quadro simply does not have. The pixel rate for the Quadro is 106.9 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s for the MX570 A, and texture rates are 213.9 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is rated at 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 4.731 TFLOPS for the MX570 A. The MX570 A also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (4.731 TFLOPS), a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power consumption tells the efficiency story. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has a TDP of 250 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and draws power from a single 8-pin connector with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The MX570 A, by contrast, has a TDP of just 25 W, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, and requires no power connectors. This is a 10x difference in power draw, making the MX570 A dramatically more efficient per watt, even if it loses on absolute performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M6000 24 GB is the clear winner in scenarios demanding maximum compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 24 GB of VRAM is a massive advantage for workloads like large-scale 3D rendering, scientific simulations, or professional video editing where datasets exceed the 2 GB limit of the MX570 A. The 317.4 GB/s bandwidth and 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 performance make it suitable for heavy GPU compute tasks. Its 96 ROPs and 106.9 GPixel/s pixel rate also give it an edge in high-resolution rasterization, which is why it dominates the Vulkan benchmark. The 23.5% lead in Vulkan suggests it handles complex, draw-call-heavy scenes much better.

The MX570 A wins on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 25 W TDP makes it viable for thin-and-light laptops where the 250 W Quadro would be impossible to cool or power. The inclusion of 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores means it can accelerate ray-traced workloads and AI inference tasks that the Quadro cannot handle at all. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1) gives it access to newer rendering features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface also doubles the bandwidth of the Quadro’s PCIe 3.0 x16 link, which could benefit data transfer to and from the GPU.

In terms of benchmark positioning, the Quadro M6000 24 GB sits near the RTX 4070 SUPER (delta 0.1%) and RTX 4090 Mobile (delta -0.9%), indicating it still performs competitively against 2023-era hardware. The MX570 A, on the other hand, is closely matched with the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (0% delta) and the RTX 5080 Mobile (0.9% delta), showing it is a solid entry-level option but not a performance leader.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For users who need maximum raw performance, especially in Vulkan-based applications or workloads that can utilize 24 GB of memory, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB is the definitive choice. Its 23.5% Vulkan lead and 0.8% OpenCL edge, combined with its 83rd percentile ranking, demonstrate that it remains a formidable compute device even today. The 0% delta against the RTX 5050 Mobile and the -0.9% delta against the RTX 4090 Mobile reinforce that it is not merely a relic but a still-relevant performer.

For users prioritizing portability, power efficiency, and modern features, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A is the only viable option. Its 25 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 250 W makes it suitable for devices where the Quadro physically cannot fit or operate. Its RT and tensor cores open up capabilities that the Quadro lacks entirely, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proofs it for newer game and application APIs. The 81st percentile ranking shows it is a respectable performer in its class, even if it trails the Quadro by a significant margin in absolute terms.

Strictly from the data, a desktop workstation user with access to adequate power and cooling should choose the Quadro M6000 24 GB without hesitation. A laptop user or someone needing GPU acceleration for modern ray-traced or AI workloads should select the MX570 A. The two are not direct competitors; they serve different markets, and the data confirms that each excels in its intended role.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has an average benchmark score of 43,262, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A’s 38,691. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking at 83% versus 81%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M6000 24 GB in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 46,425 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 23.5% higher than the MX570 A’s score of 37,601. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any test.

Q: Does the MX570 A have any features the Quadro M6000 24 GB lacks?

A: Yes. The MX570 A includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which the Quadro M6000 24 GB does not have. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) compared to the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has a memory bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s, while the MX570 A has a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro’s bandwidth is more than three times higher.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power consumption?

A: The MX570 A has a TDP of 25 W, which is significantly lower than the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 250 W TDP. The MX570 A also requires no power connectors, while the Quadro needs a single 8-pin connector.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare on the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40,098, and the MX570 A scores 39,780, giving the Quadro a narrow 0.8% lead. This is a much closer result than the Vulkan test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Chip | GM200 | GA107SB |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 832 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1155 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 192 | 64 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 36.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 73.92 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.844 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 25 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2016-03-04 | 2021-12-16 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,999 USD | None |