Radeon RX 5700 vs GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 and Radeon RX 5700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 5700 outperforms 570 Rev. 2 by a whopping 418% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 628 | 172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.93 | 29.42 |
| Power efficiency | 2.33 | 14.69 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (15 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5700 has 3063% better value for money than GTX 570 Rev. 2.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 1465 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 248.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 7.949 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 64 |
| TMUs | 60 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 640 KB | 4 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 268 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 21−24
−81.6%
| 114 |
| 1440p | 12−14 | 69
+475%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−81.4%
| 43 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.62 | 3.06
+81.6%
|
| 1440p | 29.08 | 5.06
+82.6%
|
| 4K | 43.63 | 8.12
+81.4%
|
- RX 5700 has 82% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5700 has 83% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5700 has 81% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 159 | 159 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344 | 344 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 84 | 84 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 131 | 131 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 121 | 121 |
| Battlefield 5 | 115 | 115 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 307 | 307 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75 | 75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 156 | 156 |
| Fortnite | 166 | 166 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132 | 132 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 151 | 151 |
| Valorant | 294 | 294 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 70 | 70 |
| Battlefield 5 | 105 | 105 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154 | 154 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67 | 67 |
| Dota 2 | 156 | 156 |
| Far Cry 5 | 144 | 144 |
| Fortnite | 140 | 140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130 | 130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137 | 137 |
| Metro Exodus | 87 | 87 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 144 | 144 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 147 | 147 |
| Valorant | 291 | 291 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 97 | 97 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58 | 58 |
| Dota 2 | 146 | 146 |
| Far Cry 5 | 135 | 135 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118 | 118 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139 | 139 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91 | 91 |
| Valorant | 160 | 160 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 118 | 118 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87 | 87 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 240−250 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72 | 72 |
| Metro Exodus | 51 | 51 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 277 | 277 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 81 | 81 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36 | 36 |
| Far Cry 5 | 93 | 93 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 103 | 103 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65 | 60−65 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 77 | 77 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25 | 25 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72 | 72 |
| Metro Exodus | 31 | 31 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48 | 48 |
| Valorant | 231 | 231 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 54 | 54 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15 | 15 |
| Dota 2 | 100 | 100 |
| Far Cry 5 | 47 | 47 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70 | 70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 59 | 59 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 39 | 39 |
This is how GTX 570 Rev. 2 and RX 5700 compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 is 443% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 is 475% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 is 438% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.55 | 33.95 |
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 180 Watt |
RX 5700 has a 418% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 540% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 83% more advanced lithography process, and 18% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
