Radeon Pro 555X vs GeForce GTX 570
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570 with Radeon Pro 555X, including specs and performance data.
GTX 570 outperforms Pro 555X by a significant 21% 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 | 495 | 564 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.89 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.29 | 7.92 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 16 July 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 480 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 907 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 43.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 1.393 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 16 |
| TMUs | 60 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 640 KB | 1024 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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1900 MHz (3800 data rate) | 1275 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 81.6 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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 80
+23.1%
| 65−70
−23.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+24.4%
|
40−45
−24.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+24.4%
|
40−45
−24.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+21.9%
|
30−35
−21.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+18.8%
|
45−50
−18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+13.6%
|
80−85
−13.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+24.4%
|
40−45
−24.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+16.1%
|
120−130
−16.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+15%
|
60−65
−15%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+21.9%
|
30−35
−21.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+18.8%
|
45−50
−18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+20.7%
|
27−30
−20.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+13.6%
|
80−85
−13.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+15%
|
60−65
−15%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+21.9%
|
30−35
−21.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+13.6%
|
80−85
−13.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+18.8%
|
45−50
−18.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+21.7%
|
60−65
−21.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+14%
|
40−45
−14%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+20.5%
|
85−90
−20.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+35.3%
|
16−18
−35.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
27−30
−20.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
This is how GTX 570 and Pro 555X compete in popular games:
- GTX 570 is 23% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 570 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 570 surpassed Pro 555X in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.39 | 7.73 |
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 16 July 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 570 has a 21.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro 555X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 192% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 555X in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 570 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro 555X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
