NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A and NVIDIA TITAN V occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects this clearly. The TITAN V dominates every shared test, while the MX570 A is positioned as a low-power integrated solution. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the architectural differences explain why these two products exist in entirely different markets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the TITAN V wins both available comparisons by a massive margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN V scores 157,265 against the MX570 A’s 39,780, representing a delta of -74.7% for the MX570 A. This means the TITAN V delivers roughly four times the raw compute performance in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the TITAN V scoring 152,117 versus 37,601 for the MX570 A, a -75.3% delta. These are not close contests; the TITAN V is in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at broader benchmark averages, the picture becomes more nuanced. The MX570 A has an average benchmark score of 38,691, while the TITAN V averages 34,355. This is surprising given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the different benchmark suites each card was tested with. The MX570 A sits at the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN V sits at the 79th percentile. In terms of nearest rivals, the MX570 A is bracketed by the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38,706 average score, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349, 0.9% delta). The TITAN V’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541 average score, -0.5% delta), showing that its average is dragged down by older DirectX benchmarks.

The TITAN V’s strength in modern compute workloads is evident from its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,565, a test the MX570 A does not appear in. The PassMark suite further illustrates the TITAN V’s capabilities: it scores 19,805 in G3D, 9,263 in GPU Compute, and 937 in G2D. Its DirectX legacy scores are notably lower, with DirectX 9 at 213, DirectX 10 at 153, DirectX 11 at 152, and DirectX 12 at 81. These numbers suggest the TITAN V excels in compute and modern workloads but shows less consistency across older API tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The MX570 A uses the GA107SB chip based on Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It packs 8,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². In contrast, the TITAN V uses the GV100 chip based on Volta architecture, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It contains 21,100 million transistors on a massive 815 mm² die, with a lower density of 25.9 million per mm². The TITAN V’s die is over four times larger, reflecting its high-end compute-oriented design.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The MX570 A has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN V offers 12 GB of HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 651.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 6x difference in memory capacity and nearly 7x in bandwidth, which directly impacts performance in memory-intensive workloads. The TITAN V’s memory clock is listed at 848 MHz with 1696 Mbps effective, while the MX570 A runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Compute resources also favor the TITAN V overwhelmingly. The TITAN V has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MX570 A has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In ray tracing and tensor cores, the MX570 A has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the TITAN V has no RT cores but 640 tensor cores. The TITAN V’s tensor core count is 10x higher, reflecting its Volta-era focus on AI and deep learning workloads.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The TITAN V has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1455 MHz, while the MX570 A runs at 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the MX570 A achieves higher transistor density on a smaller node, but the TITAN V’s sheer scale compensates. Pixel rate is 139.7 GPixel/s for the TITAN V versus 36.96 GPixel/s for the MX570 A. Texture rate is 465.6 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 14.90 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1). The TITAN V’s FP16 advantage is particularly pronounced due to its 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications differ completely. The MX570 A has a TDP of 25 W, is an IGP slot width, and requires no power connectors. The TITAN V has a 250 W TDP, is dual-slot, and needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The TITAN V measures 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the MX570 A has no listed dimensions. Bus interfaces differ as well: the MX570 A uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the TITAN V uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the MX570 A, versus 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the TITAN V.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different use cases. The TITAN V is the clear winner for anyone needing raw compute performance, with roughly 4x the OpenCL and Vulkan scores of the MX570 A. Its 12 GB HBM2 memory and 651.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, while its 640 tensor cores target AI workloads. The MX570 A, by contrast, is a low-power integrated solution with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable device dependent outputs. It is designed for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal constraints take priority over performance.

The TITAN V’s launch MSRP is 2,999 USD, positioning it as a premium compute card. The MX570 A has no listed launch MSRP, reinforcing its role as an OEM mobile part. The TITAN V’s percentile ranking (79th) is slightly lower than the MX570 A’s (81st), but this is misleading given the different benchmark suites. In the shared tests, the TITAN V is overwhelmingly faster. The MX570 A’s 25 W TDP versus the TITAN V’s 250 W makes the power envelope a deciding factor for mobile applications.

For users who prioritize compute density and memory bandwidth, the TITAN V is the only choice. For users who need a GPU that fits into a low-power mobile chassis, the MX570 A is the practical option. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in every major specification category. Process node: 8 nm (Samsung) versus 12 nm (TSMC). Transistors: 8,700 million versus 21,100 million. Die size: 200 mm² versus 815 mm². Transistor density: 43.5M / mm² versus 25.9M / mm². Base clock: 832 MHz versus 1200 MHz. Boost clock: 1155 MHz versus 1455 MHz. Memory clock: 1500 MHz / 12 Gbps effective versus 848 MHz / 1696 Mbps effective. Memory size: 2 GB GDDR6 versus 12 GB HBM2. Bus width: 64 bit versus 3072 bit. Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 651.3 GB/s. Shading units: 2048 versus 5120. TMUs: 64 versus 320. ROPs: 32 versus 96. RT cores: 16 versus null. Tensor cores: 64 versus 640. Pixel rate: 36.96 GPixel/s versus 139.7 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 73.92 GTexel/s versus 465.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.731 TFLOPS versus 14.90 TFLOPS. FP16: 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 25 W versus 250 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: null versus 600 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.0 + 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Release date: 2021-12-16 versus 2017-12-06. Dimensions: not listed versus 267 mm / 112 mm / 40 mm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in shared benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V wins both shared tests, scoring 157,265 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 39,780 for the MX570 A, and 152,117 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 37,601.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The TITAN V has 651.3 GB/s bandwidth with 12 GB HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus, while the MX570 A has 96.00 GB/s with 2 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MX570 A has a 25 W TDP with no power connectors, while the TITAN V has a 250 W TDP requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which GPU has more tensor cores?

A: The TITAN V has 640 tensor cores, compared to 64 on the MX570 A. The MX570 A additionally has 16 RT cores, while the TITAN V has none.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The MX570 A averages 38,691 and sits at the 81st percentile, while the TITAN V averages 34,355 and sits at the 79th percentile.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The MX570 A supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the TITAN V supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V wins in every scenario requiring maximum compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 14.90 TFLOPS and FP16 performance of 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) dwarf the MX570 A’s 4.731 TFLOPS in both formats. The 12 GB HBM2 memory with 651.3 GB/s bandwidth handles large working sets that would exhaust the MX570 A’s 2 GB GDDR6. The 640 tensor cores make the TITAN V suited for AI inference and training workloads, a domain where the MX570 A’s 64 tensor cores are far less capable. The TITAN V’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,565 and PassMark G3D score of 19,805 indicate strong modern gaming and rendering performance.

The MX570 A wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is one-tenth of the TITAN V’s 250 W, making it viable for portable devices with no discrete power connectors. The IGP slot width and portable device dependent outputs mean it can be embedded directly into laptops. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface offers newer bus technology than the TITAN V’s PCIe 3.0 x16, though the TITAN V’s wider x16 connection provides more bandwidth. The MX570 A’s DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support is more modern than the TITAN V’s DirectX 12 (12_1), giving it feature parity with newer graphics APIs despite lower raw performance.

For users with specific workload requirements, the choice is clear. Compute-heavy tasks like scientific simulation, deep learning, or high-resolution rendering demand the TITAN V. Mobile productivity, basic graphics acceleration, and low-power computing align with the MX570 A. The data shows no overlap in their optimal use cases.