AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX570 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two accelerators, with the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 taking the only direct comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX570 scores 38299 against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 27971, a 36.9% advantage. That single win defines the entire head-to-head picture, as the database records no other shared benchmark where the AMD part comes out ahead.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 does have a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37109, but the MX570 has no corresponding Vulkan entry in the database. Without a matching test, the Vulkan figure stands alone. The FirePro's average benchmark score across its two recorded tests is 32540, while the MX570's average is 38299. The MX570's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 81, compared to the FirePro's 77.

Looking at nearest rivals puts both parts in context. The MX570 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38349) and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (38135). It trails the MX570 A by 1% (38691) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X by 1.1% (38706). The FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, lands within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME (32601), 0.3% behind the RX 7900 GRE (32456), 0.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro S10000 (32388), and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32849).

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the MX570 wins the compute workload that both parts were tested on, and the FirePro's extra memory bandwidth and raw shader count do not translate into a benchmark victory in the data. For any application relying on OpenCL performance, the MX570 is the stronger pick based on measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 uses the GA107S chip on the Ampere architecture, built on Samsung's 8 nm process. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip on GCN 3.0, built on TSMC's 28 nm node. It holds 8,900 million transistors across a much larger 596 mm² die, with a density of only 14.9M per mm². The process gap explains the density difference: the newer node allows NVIDIA to fit nearly the same transistor count into a third of the area.

Core counts also differ significantly. The MX570 has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro S9300 X2 doubles the shading units to 4096, quadruples texture units to 256, and doubles ROPs to 64. The FirePro also carries 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores on the MX570, while the AMD part has none of either. The FirePro's higher raw throughput shows in its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 249.6 GTexel/s, compared to 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s for the MX570.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The MX570 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s, over five times the bandwidth. The FirePro's memory clock is listed at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the MX570's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The MX570's FP32 throughput is 4.731 TFLOPS with FP16 at the same 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1); the FirePro reaches 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 with no recorded FP16 figure.

Power and physical design are also stark contrasts. The MX570 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The FirePro is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, with a 300 W TDP, two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested 700 W power supply. The MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The FirePro has no display outputs, while the MX570's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The MX570 scores 38299, the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27971. The delta is 36.9% in favor of the MX570. That is a decisive margin, not a narrow one. For context, the MX570's nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of its score, so the 36.9% gap over the FirePro is far larger than any difference between the MX570 and its closest competitors.

The FirePro's Vulkan score of 37109, while not directly comparable due to the MX570 lacking that test, is higher than its own OpenCL result by 32.6% (37109 versus 27971). This suggests the FirePro's performance varies substantially across APIs, but the database provides no MX570 Vulkan number to compare.

The data also shows the FirePro's average benchmark score of 32540 is dragged down by its lower OpenCL result. The MX570's average of 38299 is 17.7% higher than the FirePro's average. In percentile terms, the MX570 ranks 81st versus the FirePro's 77th, a 4-percentile gap.

Given the FirePro's advantages in raw specs, the benchmark outcome is notable. The FirePro has double the shading units, quadruple the texture units, and over five times the memory bandwidth, yet it loses by 36.9% in OpenCL. This points to architectural efficiency and driver maturity favoring the newer Ampere design. The MX570's 8 nm process and 1:1 FP16 support likely contribute to its strong showing, but the database does not isolate those factors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 38299 versus the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 27971, a 36.9% margin.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 have any benchmark where it beats the MX570?

A: No. The database records no shared test where the FirePro wins. It has a Vulkan score of 37109, but the MX570 has no Vulkan result for comparison.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 512.0 GB/s bandwidth from 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus. The MX570 has 96.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MX570 is a 15 W IGP with no power connectors. The FirePro S9300 X2 is a 300 W dual-slot card requiring two 8-pin connectors and a suggested 700 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 reaches 7.987 TFLOPS, while the MX570 delivers 4.731 TFLOPS. Despite this, the MX570 wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The MX570 ranks in the 81st percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro S9300 X2 ranks in the 77th.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 3.0 |

| Process node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 8,900 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Shading units | 2048 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 64 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor cores | 64 | None |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | HBM |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 500 MHz, 1000 Mbps effective |

| FP32 | 4.731 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| Pixel rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 249.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 15 W | 300 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 700 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX version | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan version | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release date | 2021-12-16 | 2016-03-30 |

| Predecessor | None | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | None | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Launch MSRP | Not available | 5,999 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 as the stronger performer in the shared workload. Its 36.9% OpenCL victory over the FirePro S9300 X2 is decisive, and its 81st percentile ranking beats the FirePro's 77th. The MX570 also achieves this with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and an IGP form factor, making it suitable for portable systems. The FirePro, by contrast, demands a 300 W power budget, dual-slot space, and a 700 W power supply, yet still loses the benchmark.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 does hold advantages in raw specifications: double the shading units, quadruple the texture units, and over five times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS is 68.9% higher than the MX570's 4.731 TFLOPS. But these specs do not translate into benchmark success. The FirePro's OpenCL score of 27971 is well below not only the MX570 but also below its own Vulkan score of 37109, suggesting inconsistent performance across APIs.

For users prioritizing the recorded OpenCL performance, the MX570 is the clear choice. It delivers a higher score, a better percentile ranking, and far lower power requirements. The FirePro S9300 X2 only makes sense if the user specifically needs its 4 GB HBM memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 4096-bit bus for workloads not represented in the benchmark data. The database records no test where that advantage materializes into a win. The verdict is therefore straightforward: the MX570 wins the measured comparison, while the FirePro remains a niche part with superior specs but inferior benchmark results.