NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

# The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and NVIDIA GeForce MX570 serve completely different purposes, and the benchmark data makes that clear. The Quadro M6000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 39688 against the MX570's 38299, a 3.6% advantage. That is a narrow margin, but the M6000 also holds a higher percentile rank at 84 versus 81 for the MX570.

The M6000 is the choice for anyone needing a professional workstation card with massive memory capacity and high compute throughput in a desktop form factor. It is a dual-slot, 267 mm card with 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX570, by contrast, is an integrated-class mobile chip with 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. If you are building a desktop workstation with demanding visualization or compute workloads, the M6000 is the only sensible pick from this data.

The MX570 makes sense for thin-and-light laptops where power draw is critical. Its 15 W TDP versus the M6000's 250 W TDP is an enormous gap, and the MX570 requires no power connectors while the M6000 needs one 8-pin connector. The MX570 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the M6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. For a portable system with modest graphics needs, the MX570 is the practical option, despite its lower raw performance.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Quadro M6000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 39688, which is 3.6% higher than the MX570's 38299.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 317.4 GB/s for the M6000 and 96.00 GB/s for the MX570.

Q: Can the MX570 be used in a desktop tower?

A: The MX570 is marked as "IGP" slot width with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and no power connectors, indicating it is designed for laptops. The M6000 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 267 mm length.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The MX570 also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, which the M6000 lacks entirely.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The M6000 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested power supply, while the MX570 has a 15 W TDP and needs no external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has a better overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Quadro M6000 sits at the 84th percentile among all GPUs, while the MX570 sits at the 81st percentile.

# Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two is generational. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die. The MX570 uses the GA107S chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 8,700 million transistors into just 200 mm². That is a massive density difference: 43.5M transistors per mm² for the MX570 versus 13.3M for the M6000.

The M6000 is based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, which predates hardware ray tracing and tensor cores. It has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The MX570, based on Ampere, has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but it adds 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. These features enable DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the MX570, while the M6000 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1).

Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is similar for traditional graphics. The fundamental difference is that the M6000 is a brute-force compute and rasterization card from 2015, while the MX570 is a modern, feature-rich mobile chip from 2021. The M6000 was released on 2015-03-20, and the MX570 on 2021-12-16.

The M6000's transistor count is slightly lower at 8,000 million versus 8,700 million for the MX570, but the M6000's die is three times larger. This reflects the older process node and the different design goals: maximum throughput for professional workloads versus efficiency for mobile use.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The M6000 has a base clock of 988 MHz and boost of 1114 MHz, while the MX570 runs at 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ substantially: the M6000 runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, while the MX570 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The MX570's faster effective memory speed compensates somewhat for its narrower bus.

Compute output favors the M6000. It delivers 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 106.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 213.9 GTexel/s texture rate. The MX570 delivers 4.731 TFLOPS FP32, 36.96 GPixel/s, and 73.92 GTexel/s. Interestingly, the MX570 also lists FP16 performance of 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M6000 lists no FP16 figure.

The M6000 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 12 GB GDDR5, while the MX570 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR6. Bandwidth is 317.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The M6000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, dual-slot, with 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The MX570 has no fixed dimensions and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

Power requirements could not be more different. The M6000 draws 250 W with a suggested 600 W PSU and one 8-pin connector. The MX570 draws 15 W with no connectors and no suggested PSU. The M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The M6000 is in the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, while the MX570 is in the GeForce MX (5xx) generation.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark directly compares these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M6000 scores 39688, and the GeForce MX570 scores 38299. The M6000 wins by 3.6%. That is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin, especially considering the M6000's much higher TDP and desktop-only form factor.

The M6000's advantage in this test likely stems from its 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, which are all significantly higher than the MX570's 2048, 64, and 32 respectively. The M6000 also has more than three times the memory bandwidth, which helps in OpenCL workloads that stress memory access.

The MX570's closest rivals in the benchmark database illustrate its performance tier. It sits within 1.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro 580X, 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A, 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile, and 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile. The M6000's rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 0.1% delta, the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 0.1%, the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER at 0.2%, and the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile at -0.8%.

These nearest rival comparisons show that both GPUs perform in the same general league despite their architectural differences. The M6000's average benchmark score is 43301, while the MX570's is 38299. That is a 13.1% difference in average score, even though the head-to-head OpenCL test shows only a 3.6% gap. The M6000 also has a second benchmark result—Geekbench Vulkan at 46913—while the MX570 has no Vulkan score listed.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M6000 wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 6.844 TFLOPS is 44.7% higher than the MX570's 4.731 TFLOPS. It also wins decisively in pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.9 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s). These figures translate to better performance in graphics-heavy professional applications, high-resolution rendering, and compute workloads that rely on massive parallel throughput.

The M6000 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 12 GB versus 2 GB, it can handle datasets that would instantly exhaust the MX570's frame buffer. The 317.4 GB/s bandwidth is 3.3 times the MX570's 96.00 GB/s. For large textures, complex 3D scenes, or GPU compute with big working sets, the M6000 is the clear winner.

The MX570 wins on efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP is 6% of the M6000's 250 W. It requires no power connectors, no dedicated cooling beyond what a laptop provides, and fits into an IGP form factor. The MX570 also wins on modern features: it has ray tracing cores, tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and PCIe 4.0 connectivity. The M6000 has none of these.

The MX570's FP16 capability at 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) is notable. The M6000 lists no FP16 performance, suggesting it either lacks dedicated FP16 hardware or runs it at reduced throughput. For workloads that leverage FP16, the MX570's architecture is more modern and capable.

The MX570 also wins on memory technology. GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective is faster than the GDDR5 at 6.6 Gbps effective. The MX570's smaller 64-bit bus limits total bandwidth, but the per-pin speed is superior. For a mobile chip, this strikes a reasonable balance between power and performance.

In practical terms, the M6000 is for desktop workstations where power is abundant and performance is paramount. The MX570 is for laptops where battery life and thermals matter more than peak throughput. The benchmark data shows the M6000 is faster, but the MX570 offers features and efficiency that the older architecture simply cannot match. Choose based on your form factor and workload requirements, not just raw scores.