GeForce RTX 2080 vs GTX 570M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570M with GeForce RTX 2080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 outperforms 570M by a whopping 904% 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 | 719 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 19.61 |
| Power efficiency | 4.58 | 16.03 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 28 June 2011 (15 years ago) | 20 September 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 336 | 2944 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 1515 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 215 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.20 | 314.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7728 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 64 |
| TMUs | 56 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 368 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 2.9 MB |
| L2 Cache | 384 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 1536 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 37
−846%
| 350−400
+846%
|
| Full HD | 53
−172%
| 144
+172%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−910%
| 101
+910%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−943%
| 73
+943%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.85 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.92 |
| 4K | no data | 9.58 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−1174%
|
240−250
+1174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1089%
|
100−110
+1089%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−1018%
|
120−130
+1018%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
−1686%
|
120−130
+1686%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−806%
|
163
+806%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−1174%
|
240−250
+1174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1089%
|
100−110
+1089%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−800%
|
117
+800%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−665%
|
199
+665%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−643%
|
156
+643%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−1018%
|
120−130
+1018%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1061%
|
209
+1061%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−361%
|
263
+361%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−761%
|
155
+761%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−1174%
|
240−250
+1174%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
−256%
|
270−280
+256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1089%
|
100−110
+1089%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−282%
|
140−150
+282%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−762%
|
112
+762%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−565%
|
173
+565%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−629%
|
153
+629%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−836%
|
131
+836%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−1025%
|
90
+1025%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−1018%
|
120−130
+1018%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−944%
|
188
+944%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−1292%
|
181
+1292%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−346%
|
254
+346%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−706%
|
145
+706%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1089%
|
100−110
+1089%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−282%
|
140−150
+282%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−715%
|
106
+715%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−529%
|
132
+529%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−839%
|
169
+839%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−715%
|
106
+715%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−291%
|
223
+291%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−500%
|
156
+500%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−1018%
|
120−130
+1018%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−838%
|
300−350
+838%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−3100%
|
95−100
+3100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1900%
|
60
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−415%
|
170−180
+415%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−461%
|
247
+461%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−6150%
|
125
+6150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1138%
|
99
+1138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1080%
|
118
+1080%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1433%
|
90−95
+1433%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1500%
|
128
+1500%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−1083%
|
70−75
+1083%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−569%
|
107
+569%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 76 |
| Valorant | 18−20
−1132%
|
234
+1132%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−7500%
|
76
+7500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−713%
|
120−130
+713%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1867%
|
59
+1867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1250%
|
81
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1280%
|
69
+1280%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1200%
|
65
+1200%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how GTX 570M and RTX 2080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 is 846% faster in 900p
- RTX 2080 is 172% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 is 910% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 is 943% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 2080 is 7500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2080 performs better in 59 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.44 | 44.56 |
| Recency | 28 June 2011 | 20 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 215 Watt |
GTX 570M has 187% lower power consumption.
RTX 2080, on the other hand, has a 904% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 433% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 570M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 570M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 2080 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
