Radeon HD 6570 vs GeForce GTX 280M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI with Radeon HD 6570, including specs and performance data.

GTX 280M SLI
2009
2 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
3.44
+141%

GTX 280M SLI outperforms HD 6570 by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7281002
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.07
Power efficiency1.681.75
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameN10E-GTXTurks
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date2 March 2009 (15 years ago)19 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$79

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores256480
Core clock speed585 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data650 MHz
Number of transistors1508 Million716 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rateno data15.60
Floating-point processing powerno data0.624 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data24

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 supportno dataPCIe 2.1 x16
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed950 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+
DisplayPort support-+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
UVD-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX10DirectX® 11
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2
CUDA+-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.44 1.43
Recency 2 March 2009 19 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 40 Watt

GTX 280M SLI has a 140.6% higher aggregate performance score.

HD 6570, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 275% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 280M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6570 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M SLI is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6570 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 280M SLI
GeForce GTX 280M SLI
AMD Radeon HD 6570
Radeon HD 6570

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 280M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 762 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.