GeForce MX570 vs Radeon R9 280

Place in the ranking	362	353
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.44	no data
Power efficiency	4.99	41.12
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Tahiti	GA107
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	May 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1792	2048
Core clock speed	no data	832 MHz
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	1155 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	73.92
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	4.731 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	40
TMUs	112	64
Tensor Cores	no data	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 GB/s	96 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	-	8.6

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. 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.

R9 280 14.46

GeForce MX570 14.90
+3%

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.

R9 280 5559

GeForce MX570 5729
+3.1%

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

30−35

−13.3%

34
+13.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

9.30

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	12 +0%	12 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry 5	68 +0%	68 +0%
Fortnite	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
World of Tanks	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Elden Ring	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

This is how R9 280 and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX570 is 13% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.46	14.90
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	25 Watt

R9 280 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX570, on the other hand, has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 700% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 280 and GeForce MX570.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while GeForce MX570 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.