NVIDIA GeForce MX570 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data offers a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 and the NVIDIA Tesla P4: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the MX570 scores 38299 points, while the Tesla P4 scores 34947 points. That gives the MX570 a decisive 9.6% advantage over the Tesla P4. For context, the MX570’s score places it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly four-fifths of the database’s tracked graphics cards. The Tesla P4 also sits in the 81st percentile, but its average benchmark score across all tests is 37628, which is lower than the MX570’s average of 38299.

The 9.6% delta is not trivial, but it is worth remembering the Tesla P4 has an additional data point: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 40309. That Vulkan result exceeds the MX570’s OpenCL score by 5.2%, suggesting the Tesla P4 may be more competitive in API-specific workloads that favor Vulkan. However, since no Vulkan score exists for the MX570, a direct head-to-head in that test is impossible from the available data.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the MX570’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile, which scores 38349—just 0.1% higher. The MX570 also edges out the RTX 4080 Mobile (38135) by 0.4%, while trailing the MX570 A (38691) by 1% and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (38706) by 1.1%. The Tesla P4, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, which scores 37648 (0.1% higher), and beats the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507) by 0.3% and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37157) by 1.3%. The RTX 4080 Mobile (38135) is 1.3% ahead of the Tesla P4.

In summary, the MX570 is the clear winner in the one benchmark where both cards appear, but the Tesla P4’s Vulkan result hints at untapped potential. The margin between them (9.6%) is meaningful, yet the Tesla P4’s higher raw compute throughput—5.704 TFLOPS FP32 versus the MX570’s 4.731 TFLOPS—suggests the OpenCL gap may not tell the whole story.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison available?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 38299, beating the NVIDIA Tesla P4’s 34947 by 9.6%.

Q: Does the Tesla P4 have any benchmark result that exceeds the MX570’s best score?

A: Yes. The Tesla P4 scores 40309 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than the MX570’s OpenCL score of 38299. However, no Vulkan score is listed for the MX570, so a direct comparison in that test is not possible.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX570 is nearly identical to the RTX 5080 Mobile (0.1% slower), slightly ahead of the RTX 4080 Mobile (0.4% faster), and behind the MX570 A (1% slower) and Radeon Pro 580X (1.1% slower). The Tesla P4 is almost tied with the RTX 4070 (0.1% slower), ahead of the RX Vega 56 (0.3% faster) and Radeon PRO W6400 (1.3% faster), and 1.3% behind the RTX 4080 Mobile.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The MX570 has an average benchmark score of 38299, while the Tesla P4’s average across its two benchmark results is 37628.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Tesla P4 is higher, with 5.704 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the MX570’s 4.731 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Are both cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the MX570 and the Tesla P4 are listed in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, indicating similar overall standing despite the MX570’s higher average score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The MX570 uses the Ampere architecture on a GA107S chip, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process node. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The Tesla P4, in contrast, is based on the older Pascal architecture with a GP104 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 16 nm process. It contains 7,200 million transistors spread across a larger 314 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 22.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

The MX570 features 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 16 ray-tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, reflecting Ampere’s focus on RTX and AI workloads. The Tesla P4 has more shading units (2560), TMUs (160), and ROPs (64), but it lacks ray-tracing and tensor cores entirely—a hallmark of the Pascal generation. This difference in core configuration explains why the Tesla P4 can achieve higher theoretical pixel and texture rates: 71.30 GPixel/s and 178.2 GTexel/s, respectively, versus the MX570’s 36.96 GPixel/s and 73.92 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The MX570 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla P4 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth—exactly double the MX570’s bus width and roughly double the bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a mixed story: the Tesla P4 has a higher base clock (886 MHz vs. 832 MHz) but a lower boost clock (1114 MHz vs. 1155 MHz). Memory clocks are similar (1500 MHz vs. 1502 MHz), but the MX570’s memory runs at 12 Gbps effective, while the Tesla P4’s runs at 6 Gbps effective.

FP16 performance highlights a dramatic architectural split. The MX570 delivers 4.731 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning full-rate half-precision compute. The Tesla P4, however, offers only 89.12 GFLOPS FP16—a 1:64 ratio—making it 53 times slower in half-precision tasks. This alone marks the MX570 as the far better choice for AI inference or other FP16-heavy workloads.

Power and physical design also differ. The MX570 has a 15 W TDP and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the Tesla P4 has a 75 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, and no power connectors but suggests a 250 W PSU. The Tesla P4 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, compared to the MX570’s PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are another key differentiator: the MX570 is "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host device’s outputs, whereas the Tesla P4 has no display outputs at all—it is a compute-only accelerator.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. If raw compute throughput and memory capacity are the priorities, the Tesla P4 wins on paper: 5.704 TFLOPS FP32, 8 GB of VRAM, and 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth dwarf the MX570’s 4.731 TFLOPS, 2 GB, and 96.00 GB/s. The Tesla P4 also has double the ROPs and TMUs, leading to higher pixel and texture fill rates. For tasks like rendering or large-batch inference that rely on memory capacity and fill rates, the Tesla P4 is the stronger candidate.

However, the benchmark results tell a different story for actual OpenCL performance. The MX570 beats the Tesla P4 by 9.6% in Geekbench OpenCL, despite having fewer shading units and less memory bandwidth. This suggests that Ampere’s architectural efficiency, combined with the 8 nm process node and full-rate FP16 support, gives the MX570 a real-world edge in compute tasks that leverage newer instruction sets or half-precision math. The MX570 also consumes a fraction of the power (15 W vs. 75 W), making it far more suitable for battery-constrained or thermally limited systems.

The Tesla P4’s Vulkan score of 40309 is intriguing, but without a comparable MX570 Vulkan result, it is impossible to conclude that the Tesla P4 is faster in that API. The MX570’s nearest rival, the RTX 5080 Mobile, is essentially tied with it (0.1% difference), which places the MX570 in elite mobile territory. The Tesla P4, meanwhile, is nearly inseparable from the RTX 4070 (0.1% difference), a desktop-class card.

For a laptop or portable device where power efficiency and FP16 performance matter, the MX570 is the obvious choice. Its 15 W TDP and integrated design mean it can slot into thin-and-light machines without additional cooling or power delivery. The Tesla P4, with its single-slot form factor, 75 W TDP, and no display outputs, is clearly aimed at server racks or dedicated compute nodes. It offers more memory and higher raw throughput, but it cannot output video and requires a 250 W PSU recommendation.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on workload. If the task is mobile graphics, general compute, or AI inference with FP16, the MX570 delivers superior benchmark results and efficiency. If the task requires large memory buffers, high fill rates, or desktop-class FP32 throughput, the Tesla P4’s specifications make it the better fit—even though its OpenCL score lags. The 9.6% benchmark gap favors the MX570, but the Tesla P4’s 8 GB VRAM and 256-bit bus are advantages no benchmark in this data set can negate.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce MX570 | NVIDIA Tesla P4 |

|-------|---------------------|-----------------|

| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 16 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 832 MHz | 886 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1155 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 64 | 160 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 36.96 GPixel/s | 71.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.92 GTexel/s | 178.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.731 TFLOPS | 5.704 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 4.731 TFLOPS (1:1) | 89.12 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | N/A | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-12-16 | 2016-09-12 |

| Predecessor | None | Tesla Maxwell |

| Successor | None | Tesla Volta |