NVS 510 vs Radeon HD 8570M

Place in performance ranking	1038	881
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	0.14
Architecture	GCN (2011−2017)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Sun	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	16 November 2012 (11 years ago)	23 October 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449
Current price	$338	$61 (0.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 510 has 367% better value for money than HD 8570M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	192
Core clock speed	650 MHz	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	825 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	690 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.50	12.75
Floating-point performance	528.0 gflops	306.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon HD 8570M and NVS 510 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	160 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 - 2000 MHz	1782 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16 GB/s	28.51 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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 Connectors

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	no data	3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 8570M 1.14

NVS 510 1.81
+58.8%

NVS 510 outperforms Radeon HD 8570M by 59% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD 8570M 441

NVS 510 699
+58.5%

NVS 510 outperforms Radeon HD 8570M by 59% in Passmark.

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

−45.5%

16−18
+45.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Hitman 3	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Hitman 3	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

+0%

1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%