GeForce MX570 vs Radeon R9 M295X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M295X and GeForce MX570, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX570 outperforms R9 M295X by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 390 | 360 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.68 | 40.97 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2014 (10 years ago) | May 2022 (2 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 | 2048 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 832 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1155 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 73.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 40 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | Not Listed | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | Not Listed | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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 | 47
+23.7%
| 38
−23.7%
|
| 4K | 29
−3.4%
| 30−35
+3.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−9.1%
|
45−50
+9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−13%
|
60−65
+13%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−11.4%
|
35−40
+11.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−9.1%
|
35−40
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−11.1%
|
60−65
+11.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−9.1%
|
45−50
+9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+300%
|
12
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−36%
|
68
+36%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−9.2%
|
80−85
+9.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−13%
|
60−65
+13%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−11.4%
|
35−40
+11.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−10.4%
|
50−55
+10.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−9.2%
|
100−110
+9.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−9.1%
|
35−40
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−11.1%
|
60−65
+11.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 170−180
−7.8%
|
190−200
+7.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−9.1%
|
45−50
+9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−12.5%
|
50−55
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−8%
|
50−55
+8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−13%
|
60−65
+13%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−11.4%
|
35−40
+11.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−9.2%
|
100−110
+9.2%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−11.1%
|
60−65
+11.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−22.6%
|
140−150
+22.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 90−95
−10.6%
|
100−110
+10.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−16.1%
|
35−40
+16.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−15.6%
|
35−40
+15.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−14.3%
|
30−35
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−12.1%
|
35−40
+12.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−12.8%
|
40−45
+12.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
This is how R9 M295X and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:
- R9 M295X is 24% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX570 is 3% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M295X is 300% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX570 is 36% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M295X is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- GeForce MX570 is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.85 | 14.30 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 25 Watt |
GeForce MX570 has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M295X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
