NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 occupy opposite ends of NVIDIA’s professional and consumer graphics spectrum. The MX570 is a low-power Ampere-based IGP designed for thin portable devices, while the GV100 is a Volta-based workstation behemoth with HBM2 memory and a massive 815 mm² die. Benchmark data reveals a single head-to-head result, but the specification sheet alone tells a story of two entirely different design philosophies. The GV100 produces a Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004, while the MX570 scores 38,299 — a 74.5% deficit for the smaller chip. Despite this, the MX570 holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 81 compared to the GV100’s 80, indicating that percentile placement is not solely determined by raw compute throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 has a higher average benchmark score of 35,520, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 averages 38,299. However, this average is pulled down by the GV100’s multiple lower-scoring Passmark tests, including a 140 in DirectX 10 and an 84 in DirectX 12.

Q: What is the Geekbench OpenCL score difference between the two?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro GV100 scores 150,004 compared to the MX570’s 38,299. The GV100 wins by a 74.5% margin, which is the only head-to-head benchmark available between these two cards.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The MX570 features 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GV100 offers 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth — over nine times the bandwidth and sixteen times the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 5,120 shading units, while the GeForce MX570 has 2,048. The GV100 also has 320 texture mapping units and 128 ROPs, compared to 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs on the MX570.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The MX570 has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for IGP integration. The GV100 has a 250 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 600 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: The GeForce MX570 includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The Quadro GV100 has no ray tracing cores but includes 640 tensor cores, reflecting its Volta architecture focus on compute rather than real-time graphics features.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro GV100 wins decisively in raw computational throughput. Its 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than three times the MX570’s 4.731 TFLOPS. In FP16, the gap widens further: the GV100 delivers 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the MX570 provides 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The GV100’s pixel rate of 208.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 520.6 GTexel/s dwarf the MX570’s 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s. For any compute-heavy workload — scientific simulation, deep learning inference, or large-scale rendering — the GV100 is the clear choice.

The GeForce MX570 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP allows for fanless IGP designs, whereas the GV100 requires dual-slot cooling and a 250 W power budget. The MX570’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is newer than the GV100’s PCIe 3.0 x16, offering higher per-lane bandwidth. The MX570 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). For a thin-and-light laptop where battery life and thermals matter more than absolute performance, the MX570 is the only practical option.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro GV100 scores 150,004 against the MX570’s 38,299, producing a delta of -74.5% for the MX570. This is a massive gap, reflecting the GV100’s 5,120 shading units, 640 tensor cores, and 868.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. The MX570’s nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349, delta -0.1%) and the GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135, delta 0.4%), showing that the MX570 is competitive with high-end mobile GPUs from newer generations. Meanwhile, the GV100 sits near the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860, delta -0.9%), placing it in a performance tier that the MX570 cannot approach.

The GV100’s other benchmark results paint a mixed picture. Its Passmark G3D score is 19,650, while its GPU compute score is 9,069. However, its DirectX 10 score is a mere 140, and DirectX 11 score is 168. These low API-specific scores suggest that the GV100, despite its compute prowess, does not optimize well for older DirectX workloads. The MX570, by contrast, has no Passmark scores listed, so its behavior under those specific tests remains undocumented. The Geekbench OpenCL result is the only direct comparison, but it is unambiguous: the GV100 is over three times faster in this compute benchmark.

Specification Differences

Memory capacity and type differ dramatically. The MX570 uses 2 GB GDDR6, while the GV100 uses 32 GB HBM2. Bus widths are 64-bit versus 4096-bit, and bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 868.4 GB/s. Clock speeds also diverge: the MX570 has a base clock of 832 MHz and boost of 1155 MHz, whereas the GV100 runs at 1132 MHz base and 1627 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the MX570 and 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) for the GV100.

The GV100 has more of every compute resource: 5,120 shading units (versus 2,048), 320 TMUs (versus 64), 128 ROPs (versus 32), and 640 tensor cores (versus 64). The MX570 has 16 RT cores; the GV100 has none. Power and physical specifications are equally divergent: the MX570 is a 15 W IGP with no power connectors, while the GV100 is a 250 W dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring a 1x 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the GV100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent” for the MX570, while the GV100 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The MX570 is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture using the GA107S chip, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The GV100 uses the Volta architecture with the GV100 chip, produced on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It packs 21,100 million transistors into an 815 mm² die, with a density of 25.9M per mm². The Ampere chip is denser but smaller; the Volta chip is enormous and less dense but carries 2.4 times more transistors.

The MX570’s FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 at 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), indicating that it treats FP16 as a passthrough mode. The GV100’s FP16 is exactly double its FP32 at 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), highlighting Volta’s tensor core design that accelerates half-precision workloads. The MX570 includes 16 RT cores for ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the GV100. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the GV100 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). The GV100’s predecessor is Quadro Pascal and its successor is Quadro Turing; the MX570 has no listed predecessor or successor. The GV100 was released on 2018-03-26, while the MX570 came later on 2021-12-16.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: these GPUs are built for entirely different users. The Quadro GV100 is for professionals who need massive memory capacity and compute throughput. Its 32 GB HBM2, 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 make it suited for large datasets, machine learning training, and high-resolution rendering. Its 80th percentile rank and proximity to the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile in average score (35,520 versus 35,435) confirm that it remains competitive in overall benchmarks despite its age. The GV100’s 8,999 USD launch MSRP reflects its workstation-class positioning.

The GeForce MX570 is for portable devices where power efficiency is paramount. Its 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, and 81st percentile rank place it among capable mobile solutions. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,299 sits within 0.1% of the RTX 5080 Mobile and 0.4% of the RTX 4080 Mobile, showing that it punches at a high level for its class. Users who need ray tracing or DirectX 12 Ultimate support will prefer the MX570, as the GV100 lacks RT cores and is limited to DirectX 12_1.

Choose the GV100 if your workload demands raw compute, large memory pools, or tensor core acceleration. The 74.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not incremental — it is transformative for compute tasks. Choose the MX570 if you need a low-power, modern-feature GPU for a thin laptop, with the understanding that it will trail the GV100 in every computational metric except efficiency and API version support. For gamers or general consumers, the MX570’s feature set is more relevant; for professional compute, the GV100 is in a different league entirely.