NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB are both Ampere-based GPUs, but they target entirely different segments. The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the RTX A2000 12 GB, which delivers roughly 75% higher OpenCL performance. However, the MX570 is an end-of-life, ultra-low-power integrated solution, while the A2000 is a dual-slot workstation card with professional features. The choice is clear for compute-heavy work, but the MX570 has a distinct niche in power-constrained portable devices.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 scores 38,299. The A2000 leads by 42.8%, according to the deltaPct value in the head-to-head benchmark data.

Q: How does the MX570 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The MX570’s average benchmark score is 38,299, placing it at the 81st percentile of all GPUs. It is practically tied with the GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (deltaPct of -0.1%) and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile, but it is 1% behind the MX570 A and 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 580X.

Q: What is the performance profile of the RTX A2000 12 GB relative to its rivals?

A: The RTX A2000 12 GB has an average score of 34,154, which sits at the 79th percentile of all GPUs. It is essentially level with the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (deltaPct of 0.1%) and 0.5% ahead of the Radeon RX 480, but it trails the NVIDIA TITAN V by 0.6% and the RTX A1000 by 0.2%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two GPUs?

A: The MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 12 GB has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 6x capacity advantage and a 3x bandwidth advantage for the A2000.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also share the same 8 nm Samsung process node and equal transistor density of 43.5M per square millimeter.

Q: What is the power and form factor difference?

A: The MX570 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 15 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors. The RTX A2000 12 GB has a 70 W TDP, requires a 250 W suggested PSU, and is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process node. The MX570 uses the GA107S chip, which is the smaller and more power-efficient die, measuring 200 mm² and containing 8,700 million transistors. The RTX A2000 12 GB employs the larger GA106 chip, which measures 276 mm² and packs 12,000 million transistors. This size difference directly translates into computational resources: the A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operation pipelines (ROPs), while the MX570 has 2,048 shaders, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

The ray tracing and tensor core counts also scale accordingly. The MX570 includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, whereas the RTX A2000 12 GB contains 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. This gives the A2000 a substantial advantage in any workload that leverages these dedicated accelerators. Clock speeds tell a different story: the MX570 has a higher base clock of 832 MHz versus 562 MHz for the A2000, but the A2000 boosts to 1200 MHz, exceeding the MX570’s 1155 MHz boost clock.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The MX570 is limited to 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, which is a severe constraint for modern workloads. The RTX A2000 12 GB ships with 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, resulting in 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus just 96.00 GB/s for the MX570. The A2000 also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, double the lanes of the MX570’s PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. Display outputs differ as well: the A2000 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the MX570’s outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 points, while the MX570 scores 38,299 points. The deltaPct of -42.8% confirms that the MX570 is significantly slower, delivering less than 60% of the A2000’s raw compute performance in this OpenCL workload.

This result aligns with the raw specification differences. The A2000’s FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS, which is roughly 69% higher than the MX570’s 4.731 TFLOPS. Similarly, the A2000 achieves a pixel rate of 57.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 124.8 GTexel/s, compared to 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s for the MX570. The memory bandwidth gap is even more pronounced, with the A2000 offering exactly 3x the bandwidth of the MX570.

It is importantly the MX570’s average benchmark score of 38,299 is higher than its head-to-head OpenCL score suggests, because the average is based on a single Geekbench OpenCL entry. The A2000’s average score of 34,154 is dragged down by its inclusion of a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,309, which is a different metric. Despite this, the head-to-head OpenCL result is unambiguous: the A2000 wins the only direct comparison, earning 1 win versus 0 for the MX570.

The Verdict

The data is conclusive for compute performance: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is the superior GPU by a wide margin. Its 42.8% lead in OpenCL, combined with 6x the memory capacity and 3x the bandwidth, makes it the only viable choice for professional workloads, large datasets, or any task requiring more than 2 GB of VRAM. The A2000 also holds the 79th percentile rank among all GPUs, which is competitive with cards like the TITAN V and RX 480, despite its workstation positioning.

The MX570, however, is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for ultra-thin and portable devices where power draw is the primary constraint. Its 81st percentile rank is actually higher than the A2000’s 79th percentile, indicating that in the broader context of all GPUs, its efficiency-focused design performs admirably relative to its power envelope. It is also practically tied with the RTX 5080 Mobile and RTX 4080 Mobile in average score, which is remarkable for a 15 W part.

For anyone building a workstation or needing to drive 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs, the RTX A2000 12 GB is the definitive choice. For a laptop or compact device where battery life and thermals are critical and 2 GB of memory is acceptable, the MX570 remains a capable option. The A2000’s launch MSRP was 449 USD.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification:

• Chip and Die: GA107S (200 mm², 8,700 million transistors) versus GA106 (276 mm², 12,000 million transistors).
• Clocks: MX570 base 832 MHz / boost 1155 MHz; A2000 base 562 MHz / boost 1200 MHz.
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR6 on 64-bit bus (96.00 GB/s) versus 12 GB GDDR6 on 192-bit bus (288.0 GB/s).
• Shading Units: 2,048 versus 3,328.
• TMUs: 64 versus 104.
• ROPs: 32 versus 48.
• RT Cores: 16 versus 26.
• Tensor Cores: 64 versus 104.
• Pixel Rate: 36.96 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 73.92 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s.
• FP32 / FP16: 4.731 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS.
• TDP: 15 W versus 70 W.
• Slot Width: IGP versus Dual-slot.
• Suggested PSU: None versus 250 W.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Dimensions: Not specified versus 167 mm length / 69 mm height.
• Release Date: 2021-12-16 versus 2021-11-22.
• Predecessor/Successor: None versus Quadro Turing (predecessor) and Workstation Ada (successor).

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB wins in every raw performance category. It is the clear choice for:

• Professional 3D rendering, CAD, and simulation workloads that benefit from 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 compute.
• Machine learning inference or training tasks that can utilize its 104 tensor cores and 12 GB memory capacity.
• Multi-monitor setups requiring up to four display outputs via mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Any workload that requires more than 2 GB of VRAM, as the MX570’s 2 GB will quickly become a bottleneck.
• High-bandwidth applications, given the 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s.

NVIDIA GeForce MX570 wins in the power efficiency and form factor domains. It is the better option for:

• Ultra-portable laptops and thin-and-light devices where the 15 W TDP is a hard constraint.
• Fanless or passively cooled designs that cannot accommodate a 70 W dual-slot card.
• Basic GPU acceleration in a secondary device, where its performance is still competitive with high-end mobile GPUs like the RTX 4080 Mobile, based on the 0.4% deltaPct.
• Users who do not need professional display outputs and rely on the portable device’s integrated panel.