NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two cards cleanly. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 takes the single head-to-head comparison available, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 38,299 against the Tesla M40 24 GB's 37,439. That is a 2.2% margin in favor of the MX570. So on raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the MX570 is the victor.

However, the Tesla M40 24 GB has a clear advantage in overall benchmark standing. Its average benchmark score of 41,707 places it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, while the MX570's average of 38,299 sits in the 81st percentile. The M40 also has two benchmark results on record (Geekbench OpenCL at 37,439 and Geekbench Vulkan at 45,975), whereas the MX570 only has one recorded benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL at 38,299). The M40's Vulkan score is a substantial 22.8% higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting it scales much better under Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the M40's average score of 41,707 puts it within 0.5% of the original NVIDIA Tesla M40 (41,897) and 1.3% ahead of the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti (41,187). The MX570's average of 38,299 is nearly identical to the GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349), trailing by just 0.1%. This puts the MX570 in a performance class roughly defined by modern mobile GPUs, while the M40 competes with desktop and workstation cards from a higher tier.

For use cases, the data suggests the MX570 wins in OpenCL compute tasks that are single-shot and latency-sensitive. The M40 wins in broader compatibility and Vulkan-accelerated workloads. The M40's 24 GB memory capacity versus the MX570's 2 GB also indicates the M40 is better suited for large datasets that must reside in VRAM, even if its raw compute per clock is lower.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design eras. The Tesla M40 24 GB uses the GM200 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with a die size of 601 mm² and 8,000 million transistors. The GeForce MX570 uses the GA107S chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with a die size of 200 mm² and 8,700 million transistors. The MX570 has a much higher transistor density at 43.5M per mm², versus 13.3M per mm² for the M40. That density difference is the whole story of process progress: the MX570 packs more transistors into a third of the silicon area.

The M40 is Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the MX570 is Ampere. The M40 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The MX570 has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX570 brings dedicated hardware the M40 lacks entirely: 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The M40 has no RT or tensor core counts listed, meaning it relies purely on conventional shader math.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The M40 uses 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX570 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. Clock speeds are similar in boost terms—the M40 boosts to 1112 MHz, the MX570 to 1155 MHz—but the base clocks differ: 948 MHz for the M40 versus 832 MHz for the MX570. Memory clock rates are nearly identical at 1502 MHz for the M40 and 1500 MHz for the MX570, but the effective data rates differ (6 Gbps versus 12 Gbps) due to the different memory types.

Compute rates reflect the architectural split. The M40 outputs 6.832 TFLOPS of FP32, while the MX570 outputs 4.731 TFLOPS. The MX570 also lists FP16 performance at 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M40 lists no FP16 figure. Pixel and texture rates favor the M40 heavily: 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s, versus 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s for the MX570. Power draw is a chasm: the M40 is rated at 250 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU, while the MX570 is a 15 W IGP with no power connector and no suggested PSU.

API support differs as well. The M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MX570 is PCIe 4.0 x8, the M40 is PCIe 3.0 x16. The M40 has no display outputs; the MX570's outputs are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 if you need a low-power GPU that wins in OpenCL compute. The data shows it beats the M40 by 2.2% in that specific test, and it does so while drawing only 15 W versus 250 W. It has modern features the M40 cannot match: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, FP16 support, and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its 8 nm process gives it a density advantage that makes it suitable for integrated or portable applications.

Pick the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB if you need massive memory capacity and higher overall throughput. Its 24 GB VRAM is 12 times the MX570's 2 GB, and its memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s is three times the MX570's 96.00 GB/s. Its Vulkan score of 45,975 is 20% higher than the MX570's best recorded score (38,299 in OpenCL). The M40 also lands in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs versus the MX570's 81st, and its average benchmark score of 41,707 exceeds the MX570's 38,299 by 8.9%. For workloads that fit in its VRAM and use Vulkan, the M40 is the stronger card.

The M40 is end-of-life and has no display outputs, so it is strictly a compute or server card. The MX570 is also end-of-life but is a portable device part. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP, so pricing cannot be compared from this data. The M40's nearest rivals include the RTX 3080 Ti and RX 7650 GRE, placing it in desktop enthusiast territory. The MX570's nearest rivals include mobile RTX 5080 and 4080 parts, placing it in laptop performance territory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB has an average benchmark score of 41,707, which is 8.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX570's average of 38,299.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap in the head-to-head data?

A: The only head-to-head test is Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX570 scores 38,299 against the M40's 37,439, a 2.2% margin in favor of the MX570.

Q: How does the M40's Vulkan performance compare to the MX570's OpenCL performance?

A: The M40 scores 45,975 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 20.1% higher than the MX570's 38,299 in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: What are the memory size and bandwidth differences?

A: The M40 has 24 GB of GDDR5 with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth on a 384-bit bus. The MX570 has 2 GB of GDDR6 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The GeForce MX570 has 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The Tesla M40 24 GB has no such hardware listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The M40 is rated at 250 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU, while the MX570 is rated at 15 W TDP with no power connector or suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The MX570 wins with 38,299 points versus the M40's 37,439. The delta is -2.2% from the M40's perspective, meaning the M40 trails by that margin. This is a narrow margin, close enough that the difference could matter in one workload and not another. But the MX570 takes the win.

The broader benchmark picture changes the story. The M40's Geekbench Vulkan score of 45,975 is its strongest result, and it dwarfs the MX570's single OpenCL score. If the MX570 were tested under Vulkan, the data gives no direct comparison, but the M40's Vulkan result exceeds the MX570's OpenCL result by 20.1%. The M40's average benchmark score of 41,707 also tops the MX570's 38,299 by 8.9%.

The nearest rival data reinforces the M40's higher placement. The M40's average score of 41,707 is 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40,870) and 1.3% ahead of the RTX 3080 Ti (41,187). It trails the RX 7650 GRE (42,723) by 2.4% and the original Tesla M40 (41,897) by 0.5%. The MX570's average of 38,299 is 0.4% ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135) and 1% ahead of the MX570 A (38,691 is actually higher—the MX570 trails that variant by 1%). The MX570 is essentially tied with the RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349), trailing by just 0.1%.

So the head-to-head is a single narrow MX570 win, but the surrounding data shows the M40 holds up better against its peers. The M40's percentile rank of 83 versus the MX570's 81 reflects that. In raw compute terms, the MX570 edges out the M40 in OpenCL. In overall standing and Vulkan capability, the M40 pulls ahead.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is the most fundamental split: the M40 uses 28 nm TSMC, the MX570 uses 8 nm Samsung. Transistor counts are close (8,000 million versus 8,700 million), but the die sizes are not—601 mm² for the M40 versus 200 mm² for the MX570. Transistor density is 13.3M per mm² for the M40 and 43.5M per mm² for the MX570.

Clock speeds: the M40 has a 948 MHz base and 1112 MHz boost; the MX570 has an 832 MHz base and 1155 MHz boost. Memory clocks are effectively similar (1502 MHz versus 1500 MHz), but the effective data rate differs: 6 Gbps for the M40's GDDR5, 12 Gbps for the MX570's GDDR6.

Memory capacity: 24 GB versus 2 GB. Bus width: 384-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth: 288.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Shader resources: 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs for the M40; 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs for the MX570. The MX570 adds 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores; the M40 has none listed.

Fill rates: the M40 outputs 106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s; the MX570 outputs 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.832 TFLOPS for the M40 and 4.731 TFLOPS for the MX570. FP16 is only listed for the MX570 at 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical: the M40 is 250 W, dual-slot, with an 8-pin EPS connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The MX570 is 15 W, IGP form factor, no power connector, no suggested PSU. The M40 is 267 mm long; the MX570 has no dimensions listed. The M40 has no display outputs; the MX570's outputs are portable device dependent.

Interface and API: the M40 uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the MX570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The M40 supports DirectX 12 (12_1); the MX570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both have OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ by six years: the M40 launched on 2015-11-09, the MX570 on 2021-12-16. Both are end-of-life.