GeForce MX570 vs GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
Aggregated performance score
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms MX570 by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 301 | 319 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 10.42 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | N18P-G62 Max-Q | GN20-S5 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 17 December 2021 (2 years ago) |
| Current price | $1183 | no data |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1477 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15-45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 76.80 | 73.92 |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and GeForce MX570 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Memory
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.6 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms MX570 by 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms MX570 by 7% in Passmark.
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 | 54
+8%
| 50−55
−8%
|
| 1440p | 35
+16.7%
| 30−35
−16.7%
|
| 4K | 24
+14.3%
| 21−24
−14.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 49
+53.1%
|
30−35
−53.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 38
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.7%
|
50−55
−5.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45
−7.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 56
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+7.4%
|
50−55
−7.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+7%
|
40−45
−7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50
+51.5%
|
30−35
−51.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55
+71.9%
|
30−35
−71.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 49
+69%
|
27−30
−69%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 41
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.7%
|
50−55
−5.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45
−7.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 53
+26.2%
|
40−45
−26.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+7.4%
|
50−55
−7.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+7%
|
40−45
−7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 36
+9.1%
|
30−35
−9.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 43
+34.4%
|
30−35
−34.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+68.8%
|
30−35
−68.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 39
+34.5%
|
27−30
−34.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
−68.4%
|
30−35
+68.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.7%
|
50−55
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 49
+16.7%
|
40−45
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+7.4%
|
50−55
−7.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16
−81.3%
|
27−30
+81.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+4.3%
|
21−24
−4.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+9.1%
|
30−35
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+32%
|
24−27
−32%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 15
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 8% faster than GeForce MX570 in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 16.7% faster than GeForce MX570 in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 14.3% faster than GeForce MX570 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 71.9% faster than the GeForce MX570.
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX570 is 175% faster than the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 59 tests (87%)
- GeForce MX570 is ahead in 7 tests (10%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 16.57 | 15.45 |
| Recency | 2 April 2020 | 17 December 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and GeForce MX570.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
