GeForce GTX 570M vs Radeon 840M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 840M and GeForce GTX 570M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
840M outperforms GTX 570M by a whopping 106% 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 | 488 | 682 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 4.55 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3+ (2024) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GF114 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 June 2024 (1 year ago) | 28 June 2011 (14 years ago) |
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 | 256 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 32.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7728 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 24 |
| TMUs | no data | 56 |
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 | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 72.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 75−80
+103%
| 37
−103%
|
| Full HD | 28
−89.3%
| 53
+89.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+320%
|
20−22
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
+240%
|
20−22
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+56.9%
|
55−60
−56.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+81%
|
75−80
−81%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 32
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+56.9%
|
55−60
−56.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+106%
|
35−40
−106%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+112%
|
45−50
−112%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+113%
|
21−24
−113%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 840M and GTX 570M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 840M is 103% faster in 900p
- GTX 570M is 89% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 840M is 1000% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 570M is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 840M performs better in 55 tests (90%)
- GTX 570M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.25 | 4.48 |
| Recency | 2 June 2024 | 28 June 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
Radeon 840M has a 106.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 570M 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.
