NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40,098 points, while the MX570 scores 38,299 points. That is a 4.7% advantage for the Quadro, a meaningful gap in compute workloads that stress raw shading throughput. The Quadro’s score places it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, whereas the MX570 sits at the 81st percentile—a two-point percentile gap that reflects the modest but consistent edge the workstation card holds.

In the context of their respective nearest rivals, both cards are competitive within their own performance tiers. The Quadro M6000 24 GB’s average benchmark score of 43,262 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and essentially tied with the Quadro M6000 (43,301, deltaPct -0.1). It edges out the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER by 0.1% (43,223) and trails the RTX 4090 Mobile by 0.9% (43,667). The MX570’s average score of 38,299 is similarly clustered, coming in 0.1% ahead of the RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349) and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135). It lags the MX570 A by 1% (38,691) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X by 1.1% (38,706).

What the head-to-head data shows is a single, narrow win for the Quadro in OpenCL. The 4.7% delta is not overwhelming, but it is consistent and reproducible across the one metric both cards share. The Quadro’s higher FP32 throughput—6.844 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS for the MX570—explains the outcome, as OpenCL compute scales strongly with shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The Quadro also has a massive memory bandwidth advantage (317.4 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), which further benefits memory-intensive compute kernels.

The MX570 does not win any benchmark in this comparison, but its single OpenCL score is respectable given its drastically lower power envelope. The data does not indicate that the MX570 is a poor performer; rather, it shows that the Quadro is simply faster in the one test both participated in. For users comparing these two cards purely on compute results, the Quadro M6000 24 GB is the clear choice, but the margin is not so large as to make the MX570 irrelevant in its intended use case.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40,098, which is 4.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570’s 38,299.

Q: How do the two cards compare in their nearest rival groupings?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB’s average score of 43,262 is within 0.1% of the RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and 0.1% above the RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223). The MX570’s average of 38,299 is 0.1% ahead of the RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349) and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135).

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB sits in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, while the MX570 sits in the 81st percentile—a two-point gap favoring the Quadro.

Q: Does the MX570 have any benchmark where it beats the Quadro?

A: No. In the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the Quadro wins with a 4.7% delta. The MX570 records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do the memory specifications differ?

A: The Quadro has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The Quadro delivers 6.844 TFLOPS FP32, while the MX570 delivers 4.731 TFLOPS FP32. The Quadro is roughly 45% higher in raw single-precision compute throughput.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins the only shared benchmark by 4.7%, and it holds a substantial lead in raw compute specifications—6.844 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.731 TFLOPS, 3072 shading units versus 2048, and 317.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s. Its 24 GB GDDR5 frame buffer dwarfs the MX570’s 2 GB GDDR6, and its 384-bit memory bus is six times wider. For any workload that stresses compute throughput or large dataset residency, the Quadro is the superior choice.

However, the MX570 is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 250 W TDP means it operates in a completely different power class. The MX570 is an integrated form factor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the Quadro requires a dual-slot cooler and a 1x 8-pin connector with a 600 W suggested PSU. The MX570’s 8 nm process node (Samsung) versus the Quadro’s 28 nm (TSMC) gives it a transistor density advantage—43.5M / mm² versus 13.3M / mm²—and its 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die are packed tighter than the Quadro’s 8,000 million on 601 mm².

Who should pick which? Users needing maximum compute performance, massive memory capacity, or workstation-class display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2) should choose the Quadro M6000 24 GB. Its 83rd percentile ranking and near-identical average score to the RTX 5050 Mobile and RTX 4070 SUPER show it remains competitive even against newer architectures. Users who prioritize portability, minimal power draw, or PCIe 4.0 connectivity (the MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 versus the Quadro’s PCIe 3.0 x16) should choose the MX570, despite its lower score. The MX570’s 81st percentile ranking is only two points behind the Quadro, and its 4.731 TFLOPS FP32 is respectable for a 15 W part.

The verdict is not a landslide. It is a trade-off between raw performance and efficiency. The Quadro wins on every measured benchmark and most compute specifications, but the MX570 wins on process node, transistor density, power consumption, and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate versus DirectX 12_1). Neither card is a poor choice; they serve different masters.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification that matters. The Quadro M6000 24 GB uses a GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the MX570 uses a GA107S chip on the Ampere architecture. The process node differs dramatically: 28 nm (TSMC) for the Quadro versus 8 nm (Samsung) for the MX570. Transistor counts are similar—8,000 million versus 8,700 million—but the die size is vastly different: 601 mm² for the Quadro versus 200 mm² for the MX570, yielding transistor densities of 13.3M / mm² and 43.5M / mm², respectively.

Clock speeds show the Quadro with a higher base (988 MHz vs 832 MHz) but a lower boost (1114 MHz vs 1155 MHz). Memory is where the gap widens: the Quadro has 24 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX570 has 2 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Effective memory speeds are 6.6 Gbps for the Quadro and 12 Gbps for the MX570.

The compute unit counts are starkly different: 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs for the Quadro versus 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the MX570. The MX570 adds 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. Pixel rates are 106.9 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 213.9 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 6.844 TFLOPS versus 4.731 TFLOPS, and the MX570 also has FP16 at 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability.

Power and physical differences are extreme: 250 W TDP versus 15 W, dual-slot versus IGP, 1x 8-pin connector versus none, and a suggested PSU of 600 W for the Quadro versus none for the MX570. The Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the MX570 has no listed dimensions. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the MX570 is "Portable Device Dependent."

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two NVIDIA GPUs spans two generations. The Quadro M6000 24 GB is built on Maxwell 2.0 with the GM200 chip, a 28 nm design from TSMC. The MX570 is built on Ampere with the GA107S chip, an 8 nm design from Samsung. Maxwell 2.0 predates the introduction of ray tracing and tensor cores, which explains why the Quadro lists neither RT cores nor tensor cores in its specifications. The MX570, by contrast, includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, enabling DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1).

The transistor budget is nearly identical—8,000 million for the Quadro, 8,700 million for the MX570—but the packing is entirely different. The Quadro spreads its transistors across a 601 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.3M / mm². The MX570 crams its transistors into 200 mm², achieving 43.5M / mm², more than three times the density. This is a direct consequence of the process node improvement from 28 nm to 8 nm, allowing Ampere to fit more functionality—including RT and tensor cores—into a much smaller footprint.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX570 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory system is designed for workstation workloads that demand large frame buffers and high bandwidth, while the MX570’s narrow 64-bit bus is optimized for low power consumption in portable devices. The MX570’s higher effective memory speed (12 Gbps vs 6.6 Gbps) partially compensates for the narrower bus, but not enough to close the bandwidth gap.

The shading architecture also differs in scale. The Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, yielding pixel and texture rates of 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s, respectively. The MX570 has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with pixel and texture rates of 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s. The Quadro’s 50% more shading units and 3x more ROPs give it a decisive edge in fill-rate-bound and compute-heavy workloads. The MX570’s tensor cores, however, provide dedicated hardware for AI and machine learning inference that the Maxwell-based Quadro cannot match. The MX570’s FP16 throughput of 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) is a capability the Quadro does not list at all, indicating a fundamental architectural shift toward mixed-precision and AI workloads in Ampere.

Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so software compatibility at the API level is identical. The MX570’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support is the clear forward-looking advantage, while the Quadro’s Maxwell generation is limited to DirectX 12_1. The Quadro’s production status is end-of-life, as is the MX570’s, so neither card is a future-proof purchase. The release dates—March 4, 2016, for the Quadro and December 16, 2021, for the MX570—put nearly six years between them, yet the Quadro still wins the only shared benchmark. That says more about the compute intensity of Maxwell’s design than it does about Ampere’s efficiency-focused approach.