GeForce MX570 vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce MX570, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX570 outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a whopping 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 598 | 363 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.65 | 40.67 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 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 | 384 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 832 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1155 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 73.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 4.731 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 40 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 20
−95%
| 39
+95%
|
| 1440p | 23
−139%
| 55−60
+139%
|
| 4K | 18
−122%
| 40−45
+122%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
−135%
|
122
+135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−123%
|
27−30
+123%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−173%
|
60−65
+173%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
−212%
|
106
+212%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−190%
|
27−30
+190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−213%
|
45−50
+213%
|
| Fortnite | 33
−139%
|
75−80
+139%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−123%
|
55−60
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
−267%
|
40−45
+267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−143%
|
50−55
+143%
|
| Valorant | 97
−19.6%
|
110−120
+19.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−186%
|
60−65
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
−186%
|
40
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
−238%
|
180−190
+238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−112%
|
85−90
+112%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−194%
|
45−50
+194%
|
| Fortnite | 22
−259%
|
75−80
+259%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−123%
|
55−60
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−260%
|
54
+260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−143%
|
50−55
+143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−138%
|
35−40
+138%
|
| Valorant | 73
−58.9%
|
110−120
+58.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−123%
|
85−90
+123%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−194%
|
45−50
+194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−123%
|
55−60
+123%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−143%
|
50−55
+143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−209%
|
34
+209%
|
| Valorant | 19
−511%
|
110−120
+511%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
−132%
|
75−80
+132%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−142%
|
100−110
+142%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−249%
|
120−130
+249%
|
| Valorant | 49
−196%
|
140−150
+196%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−375%
|
35−40
+375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−162%
|
30−35
+162%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
−182%
|
30−35
+182%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−52.9%
|
24−27
+52.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Valorant | 22
−245%
|
75−80
+245%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX570 is 95% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX570 is 139% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX570 is 122% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX570 is 850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX570 is ahead in 60 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.22 | 12.99 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
GeForce MX570, on the other hand, has a 148.9% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce MX570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 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.
