GeForce 810M vs GTX 570

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 570 with GeForce 810M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 570
2010, $349
1280 MB GDDR5, 219 Watt
9.40
+840%

GTX 570 outperforms 810M by a whopping 840% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5041157
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.90no data
Power efficiency3.315.13
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF110GF117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date7 December 2010 (15 years ago)24 March 2014 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$349 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores48048
Core clock speed732 MHz738 MHz
Boost clock speedno data950 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)219 Watt15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature97 °Cno data
Texture fill rate43.925.904
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPS0.1417 TFLOPS
ROPs408
TMUs608
L1 Cache960 KB64 KB
L2 Cache640 KB128 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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1280 MB1 GB
Memory bus width320 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1900 MHz (3800 data rate)900 MHz
Memory bandwidth152.0 GB/s14.4 GB/s

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 ConnectorsMini HDMITwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+2.1

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.

GTX 570 9.40
+840%
GeForce 810M 1.00

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.

GTX 570 3934
+839%
Samples: 5437
GeForce 810M 419
Samples: 98

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 570 13481
+706%
GeForce 810M 1673

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 HD80
+900%
8−9
−900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.36no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Fortnite 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Valorant 90−95
+922%
9−10
−922%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+929%
14−16
−929%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Dota 2 65−70
+886%
7−8
−886%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Fortnite 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Valorant 90−95
+922%
9−10
−922%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Dota 2 65−70
+886%
7−8
−886%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Valorant 90−95
+922%
9−10
−922%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+929%
7−8
−929%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+880%
5−6
−880%
Valorant 100−110
+950%
10−11
−950%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 0−1
Far Cry 5 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Valorant 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10 0−1

This is how GTX 570 and GeForce 810M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 570 is 900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.40 1.00
Recency 7 December 2010 24 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 1280 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 219 Watt 15 Watt

GTX 570 has a 840% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce 810M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 1360% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 570 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 810M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 570 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 810M is a notebook one.

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.


3.8 566 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 546 votes

Rate GeForce 810M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 570 or GeForce 810M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.