NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

The benchmark data positions the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A as the raw-performance leader, while the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB counters with a decisive advantage in memory capacity and interface flexibility. For users prioritizing raw compute in a single benchmark, the MX570 A is the clear choice; for those needing larger datasets or professional display outputs, the T1000 8 GB is the only viable option.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split decision. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, the MX570 A scores 37,601 against the T1000 8 GB’s 34,561, an 8.8% victory. This places the MX570 A at the 81st percentile among all GPUs, while the T1000 8 GB sits at the 79th percentile. However, the T1000 8 GB offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB on the MX570 A, a 4x capacity difference that the MX570 A cannot overcome for memory-bound workloads. The T1000 8 GB also provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MX570 A’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device. Choose the MX570 A for maximum speed in a compact, low-power package; choose the T1000 8 GB for professional multi-display setups and large memory footprints.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different NVIDIA architectures. The MX570 A is built on Ampere using the GA107SB chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The T1000 8 GB uses the older Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This node difference is significant: the MX570 A packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The T1000 8 GB has only 4,700 million transistors in the same 200 mm² die size, resulting in a much lower density of 23.5M per mm².

The MX570 A features 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus dedicated hardware for ray tracing (16 RT cores) and AI (64 tensor cores). The T1000 8 GB has fewer shading units (896), fewer TMUs (56), and the same number of ROPs (32), but it lacks RT cores and tensor cores entirely. This architectural gap translates to different feature support: the MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T1000 8 GB is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The T1000 8 GB has a higher base clock (1,065 MHz) and boost clock (1,395 MHz) versus the MX570 A’s 832 MHz base and 1,155 MHz boost. However, the MX570 A’s newer architecture and higher core count overcome this clock disadvantage in raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench Vulkan test. The MX570 A scores 37,601, beating the T1000 8 GB’s 34,561 by 8.8%. This result is consistent with the broader benchmark averages: the MX570 A has an average benchmark score of 38,691, while the T1000 8 GB averages 34,561.

Contextualizing the MX570 A’s score against its nearest rivals shows it is competitive with much larger GPUs. It sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) and AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116), and is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349). The T1000 8 GB, meanwhile, is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541, delta 0.1%) and slightly behind the NVIDIA A2 (34,690, delta -0.4%).

The pixel and texture rates tell a similar story. The T1000 8 GB achieves a higher pixel rate (44.64 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s) but the MX570 A counters with a higher texture rate (73.92 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s — wait, the T1000 8 GB is actually higher here). The MX570 A’s FP32 throughput is 4.731 TFLOPS, nearly double the T1000 8 GB’s 2.500 TFLOPS. In FP16, the T1000 8 GB reaches 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), slightly edging the MX570 A’s 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1 rate).

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | MX570 A | T1000 8 GB |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 4,700 million |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 832 MHz | 1,065 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,155 MHz | 1,395 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,048 | 896 |

| TMUs | 64 | 56 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 44.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 78.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.731 TFLOPS | 2.500 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) | 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Length | Not specified | 156 mm (6.1 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-12-16 | 2021-05-05 |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | None | Workstation Ampere |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The MX570 A, with FP32 throughput of 4.731 TFLOPS versus the T1000 8 GB’s 2.500 TFLOPS. It also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test by 8.8%.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The T1000 8 GB offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, four times the 2 GB available on the MX570 A. The T1000 8 GB also has double the memory bus width (128 bit vs 64 bit) and higher bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s).

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the MX570 A. It includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the T1000 8 GB has neither. This also explains why the MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and the T1000 8 GB only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the data. The MX570 A was released on 2021-12-16, and the T1000 8 GB on 2021-05-05.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MX570 A has a TDP of 25 W and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for integrated graphics platforms (IGP slot width). The T1000 8 GB has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, and its suggested PSU is 250 W.

Q: Which GPU is better for multi-monitor setups?

A: The T1000 8 GB is clearly superior, providing 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MX570 A’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the host device.

Where Each One Wins

The MX570 A wins decisively in raw compute. Its 4.731 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 89% higher than the T1000 8 GB’s 2.500 TFLOPS. It also wins the only head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench Vulkan, 8.8% ahead) and carries a higher average benchmark score (38,691 vs 34,561). Its 8 nm process node, higher transistor density, and inclusion of RT and tensor cores make it the more modern and feature-rich processor. The 25 W TDP and IGP form factor make it ideal for thin, power-constrained portable devices where compute density matters most. Its 81st percentile ranking confirms it outperforms 81% of all GPUs in the database.

The T1000 8 GB wins in memory and connectivity. Its 8 GB frame buffer is essential for workloads that exceed the MX570 A’s 2 GB limit. The 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth (versus 96.00 GB/s) and 128-bit bus (versus 64-bit) reduce memory bottlenecks in texture-heavy applications. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs enable professional multi-monitor configurations that the MX570 A cannot match. The T1000 8 GB also has higher pixel fill rate (44.64 GPixel/s vs 36.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (78.12 GTexel/s vs 73.92 GTexel/s), which benefits rasterization-heavy tasks. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides more host bandwidth than the MX570 A’s PCIe 4.0 x8. The 79th percentile ranking shows it performs within striking distance of the MX570 A overall, despite its older architecture and lower core count.

For compute-limited workloads that fit in 2 GB, the MX570 A offers superior speed. For memory-intensive tasks or professional display deployments, the T1000 8 GB is the only answer. The choice hinges on whether raw speed or capacity and connectivity matter more.