NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA T550 Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 takes the single OpenCL comparison by a meaningful margin, scoring 38299 against the T550 Mobile’s 35521, a 7.8% advantage. That is the only direct head-to-head measurement available in the database, and it favors the MX570.

However, the T550 Mobile has a broader benchmark footprint. The database lists two results for the T550: 35521 in OpenCL and 30801 in Vulkan. The MX570 has only one recorded score, 38299 in OpenCL. This means the T550 can be evaluated across different API workloads, while the MX570’s profile is limited to a single test. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications, the T550 is the only one of the two with recorded data, and its 30801 score stands as the reference point.

In terms of overall standing, the MX570 sits at the 81st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the T550 ranks at the 77th percentile. The MX570’s average benchmark score is 38299, matching its single OpenCL result, whereas the T550’s average is 33161, pulled down by the lower Vulkan figure. The MX570 wins the only direct comparison, but the T550 offers a second API measurement that the MX570 lacks.

The use-case split is straightforward: the MX570 is the stronger pick for OpenCL compute workloads based on the available data, while the T550 provides an additional Vulkan data point, even if it is weaker in raw score. The T550 also carries twice the memory capacity, which may matter for larger datasets, though the benchmark scores do not directly reflect that. For raw performance per the database, the MX570 leads the head-to-head; for API coverage, the T550 is more documented.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectural generations. The MX570 is built on Ampere, using the GA107S chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The T550 is a Turing part, using the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The node difference is notable: 8 nm versus 12 nm, which typically implies a density advantage for the newer process.

Transistor counts differ substantially. The MX570 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The T550 has 4,700 million transistors on the same 200 mm² die size, giving a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The MX570 nearly doubles the transistor count on identical silicon area.

The MX570’s Ampere architecture includes hardware features the T550 lacks entirely. The MX570 has 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The T550 lists null values for both, meaning it has no dedicated RT or tensor hardware. This is a fundamental architectural split: the MX570 supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations, while the T550 relies on older Turing compute paths without those specialized units.

Shading unit counts also differ. The MX570 has 2048 shading units, double the T550’s 1024. Both have 64 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, so the texture and pixel output stages are identical in width, but the shader array is twice as large on the MX570.

Clock behavior flips the expected relationship. The T550 runs higher clocks: 1065 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, versus the MX570’s 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. This higher clock rate helps the T550 close some of the gap in pixel and texture throughput. The T550’s pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 36.96 GPixel/s on the MX570, and its texture rate is 106.6 GTexel/s versus 73.92 GTexel/s. Despite having half the shaders, the T550 wins on fill rates due to its higher clocks.

Memory configurations are similar in type and bus width: both use GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. However, the T550 has 4 GB of memory, double the MX570’s 2 GB. The memory clock is identical at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

The MX570’s FP32 throughput is 4.731 TFLOPS, while the T550 manages 3.410 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is interesting: the MX570 runs FP16 at 1:1 ratio, giving 4.731 TFLOPS, while the T550 runs FP16 at 2:1 ratio, giving 6.820 TFLOPS. So the T550 is actually faster in FP16 despite being slower in FP32.

The bus interface differs: the MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the T550 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The TDP also differs: 15 W for the MX570 versus 23 W for the T550. Both are integrated into the portable device with no power connectors and display outputs dependent on the laptop.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 scores 38299 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA T550 Mobile scores 35521. The MX570 leads by 7.8% in the direct comparison.

Q: Does the T550 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The T550 Mobile lists null values for both ray tracing cores and tensor cores. The MX570 has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The T550 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6, while the MX570 has 2 GB. Both use a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX570’s higher DirectX feature level reflects its newer architecture.

Q: How do their overall percentile ranks compare?

A: The MX570 sits at the 81st percentile among all GPUs, while the T550 is at the 77th percentile. The MX570’s average score is 38299, and the T550’s average is 33161.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The T550 Mobile boosts to 1665 MHz, while the MX570 boosts to 1155 MHz. The T550’s higher clock helps its fill rates despite having fewer shaders.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GA107S (MX570) versus TU117 (T550)
• Architecture: Ampere versus Turing
• Generation: GeForce MX (5xx) versus Quadro Turing-M (Tx000)
• Process node: 8 nm versus 12 nm
• Foundry: Samsung versus TSMC
• Transistors: 8,700 million versus 4,700 million
• Transistor density: 43.5M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 832 MHz versus 1065 MHz
• Boost clock: 1155 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 4 GB
• Shading units: 2048 versus 1024
• RT cores: 16 versus null
• Tensor cores: 64 versus null
• Pixel rate: 36.96 GPixel/s versus 53.28 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 73.92 GTexel/s versus 106.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.731 TFLOPS versus 3.410 TFLOPS
• FP16: 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 6.820 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 15 W versus 23 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Predecessor: null versus Quadro Pascal-M
• Successor: null versus Ampere-MW
• Release date: 2021-12-16 versus null

The die size is identical at 200 mm² for both. Memory type, bus width, bandwidth, TMUs, ROPs, slot width, power connectors, display outputs, OpenGL version, and Vulkan version are the same.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The MX570 scores 38299, and the T550 scores 35521. The MX570 wins by 7.8%. That margin is moderate, not overwhelming, but it is consistent with the MX570’s higher FP32 throughput and larger shader array.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The MX570’s closest competitor in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile, which averages 38349, a mere 0.1% higher. The RTX 4080 Mobile sits at 38135, 0.4% lower. The MX570 A variant scores 38691, 1% higher, and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X scores 38706, 1.1% higher. The MX570 essentially trades blows with these higher-tier parts in the recorded data, which explains its 81st percentile rank.

The T550’s nearest rivals paint a different picture. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile averages 33170, essentially tied at 0% delta. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 scores 33207, 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA P104-100 scores 32982, 0.5% higher. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 32849, 1% higher. The T550’s average of 33161 places it right in the middle of this cluster, all within a 1% band, and its 77th percentile reflects this mid-pack positioning.

The biggest specification win for the T550 is its fill rate. Despite losing the OpenCL test, the T550’s pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s is 44% higher than the MX570’s 36.96 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 106.6 GTexel/s is 44% higher than 73.92 GTexel/s. These wins come from the T550’s higher boost clock, 1665 MHz versus 1155 MHz.

The biggest win for the MX570 is in compute throughput. Its FP32 of 4.731 TFLOPS is 39% higher than the T550’s 3.410 TFLOPS. Its transistor count of 8,700 million is 85% higher than 4,700 million. The MX570 also has double the shading units and the only ray tracing and tensor cores in the pair.

The FP16 picture is inverted. The T550’s 6.820 TFLOPS FP16 is 44% higher than the MX570’s 4.731 TFLOPS, thanks to the 2:1 ratio versus 1:1. This means the T550 is the better choice for workloads that leverage packed FP16 math, despite losing the FP32 comparison.

The Vulkan score for the T550, 30801, is notably lower than its OpenCL score of 35521, a 13% drop. This suggests the T550’s Vulkan driver path is less efficient than its OpenCL path. The MX570 has no Vulkan score in the database, so no comparison is possible there. The T550’s average benchmark score of 33161 reflects its two-test profile, while the MX570’s average equals its single OpenCL result.

In summary, the MX570 wins the compute-focused OpenCL test and offers superior FP32 throughput, more shaders, and dedicated RT and tensor hardware. The T550 counters with higher clocks, better fill rates, double the memory, and a faster FP16 path. The recorded head-to-head favors the MX570, but the T550’s strengths lie in different areas.