Quadro FX 570 vs GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with Quadro FX 570, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1060 Mobile
2016, $237
6 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
17.71
+2803%

1060 Mobile outperforms FX 570 by a whopping 2803% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking3431255
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.920.01
Power efficiency17.001.23
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGP106G84
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 August 2016 (9 years ago)12 September 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$237.11 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GTX 1060 Mobile has 99100% better value for money than FX 570.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores128016
Core clock speed1506 MHz460 MHz
Boost clock speed1708 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt38 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature94 °Cno data
Texture fill rate133.63.680
Floating-point processing power4.275 TFLOPS0.02944 TFLOPS
ROPs488
TMUs808
L1 Cache480 KBno data
L2 Cache1536 KB32 KB

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount6 GB256 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2002 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsDP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI2x DVI
Multi monitor support+no data
HDCP2.2-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GPU Boost3.0no data
VR Ready+no data
Ansel+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA+1.1

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 HD68
+3300%
2−3
−3300%
1440p45
+4400%
1−2
−4400%
4K30
+2900%
1−2
−2900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.49
+2754%
99.50
−2754%
1440p5.27
+3677%
199.00
−3677%
4K7.90
+2418%
199.00
−2418%
  • GTX 1060 Mobile has 2754% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1060 Mobile has 3677% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1060 Mobile has 2418% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 137
+3325%
4−5
−3325%
Cyberpunk 2077 37
+3600%
1−2
−3600%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 96
+3100%
3−4
−3100%
Counter-Strike 2 110
+3567%
3−4
−3567%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Escape from Tarkov 89
+2867%
3−4
−2867%
Far Cry 5 75
+3650%
2−3
−3650%
Fortnite 177
+2850%
6−7
−2850%
Forza Horizon 4 102
+3300%
3−4
−3300%
Forza Horizon 5 69
+3350%
2−3
−3350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 78
+3800%
2−3
−3800%
Valorant 136
+3300%
4−5
−3300%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 81
+3950%
2−3
−3950%
Counter-Strike 2 73
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 222
+3071%
7−8
−3071%
Cyberpunk 2077 25 0−1
Dota 2 100−110
+3400%
3−4
−3400%
Escape from Tarkov 81
+3950%
2−3
−3950%
Far Cry 5 68
+3300%
2−3
−3300%
Fortnite 105
+3400%
3−4
−3400%
Forza Horizon 4 91
+2933%
3−4
−2933%
Forza Horizon 5 61
+2950%
2−3
−2950%
Grand Theft Auto V 74
+3600%
2−3
−3600%
Metro Exodus 40
+3900%
1−2
−3900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 67
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+3350%
2−3
−3350%
Valorant 134
+3250%
4−5
−3250%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 71
+3450%
2−3
−3450%
Cyberpunk 2077 23 0−1
Dota 2 118
+2850%
4−5
−2850%
Escape from Tarkov 62
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
Far Cry 5 64
+3100%
2−3
−3100%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+3450%
2−3
−3450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 52
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Valorant 72
+3500%
2−3
−3500%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 81
+3950%
2−3
−3950%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+3175%
4−5
−3175%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Metro Exodus 23 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+3240%
5−6
−3240%
Valorant 133
+3225%
4−5
−3225%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 53
+5200%
1−2
−5200%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 43
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Far Cry 5 43
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 50
+4900%
1−2
−4900%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Metro Exodus 14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26 0−1
Valorant 117
+2825%
4−5
−2825%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 28 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 60−65
+3050%
2−3
−3050%
Escape from Tarkov 20 0−1
Far Cry 5 21 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 23 0−1

This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and FX 570 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1060 Mobile is 3300% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1060 Mobile is 4400% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1060 Mobile is 2900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.71 0.61
Recency 15 August 2016 12 September 2007
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 38 Watt

GTX 1060 Mobile has a 2803.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

FX 570, on the other hand, has 110.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 570 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 570 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro FX 570
Quadro FX 570

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 657 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 16 votes

Rate Quadro FX 570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile or Quadro FX 570, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.