GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 vs GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 and GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 590 outperforms 570 Rev. 2 by a significant 22% 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 | 555 | 610 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.68 | 0.92 |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 2.30 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (14 years ago) | 7 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 570 Rev. 2 has 35% better value for money than GTX 590.
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 | 1024 ×2 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 219 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | 43.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 40 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 60 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 960 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 640 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 support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| 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 | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 152.0 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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
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:
| 900p | 47
+34.3%
| 35−40
−34.3%
|
| Full HD | 111
+23.3%
| 90−95
−23.3%
|
| 1200p | 112
+24.4%
| 90−95
−24.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30
−62.4%
| 3.88
+62.4%
|
- GTX 570 Rev. 2 has 62% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+27.7%
|
65−70
−27.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+27%
|
100−105
−27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+22%
|
50−55
−22%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+27.7%
|
65−70
−27.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+22%
|
50−55
−22%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+27.7%
|
65−70
−27.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+24%
|
50−55
−24%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+30%
|
70−75
−30%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 590 and GTX 570 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GTX 590 is 34% faster in 900p
- GTX 590 is 23% faster in 1080p
- GTX 590 is 24% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.95 | 6.53 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 7 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 1280 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 219 Watt |
GTX 590 has a 21.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 140% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 570 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
