GeForce MX570 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 and GeForce MX570, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX570 outperforms RX Vega M GL / 870 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 379 | 357 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.64 | 41.05 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Vega Kaby Lake-G | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (7 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 | 1280 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 832 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1155 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| 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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 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 | - | - |
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 |
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 | 44
+7.3%
| 41
−7.3%
|
| 1440p | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| 4K | 15
−6.7%
| 16−18
+6.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−8.9%
|
60−65
+8.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+7.3%
|
40−45
−7.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 48
+33.3%
|
35−40
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 47
−27.7%
|
60−65
+27.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+125%
|
12
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−83.8%
|
68
+83.8%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−6.4%
|
80−85
+6.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−8.9%
|
60−65
+8.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
−29.3%
|
50−55
+29.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
−36.7%
|
40−45
+36.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+20.6%
|
100−110
−20.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16
−125%
|
35−40
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 30
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
−5.5%
|
190−200
+5.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+84.6%
|
13
−84.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−8%
|
50−55
+8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
−5.9%
|
50−55
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−8.9%
|
60−65
+8.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−5.9%
|
100−110
+5.9%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−9.1%
|
60−65
+9.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 62
−77.4%
|
110−120
+77.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
−7.2%
|
100−110
+7.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 32
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−8.8%
|
35−40
+8.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−8.8%
|
35−40
+8.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
−46.7%
|
40−45
+46.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| 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
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 7% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX570 is 7% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX570 is 7% 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 RX Vega M GL / 870 is 125% faster.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX570 is 125% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
- GeForce MX570 is ahead in 51 test (81%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.20 | 14.23 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
RX Vega M GL / 870 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GeForce MX570, on the other hand, has a 7.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 and GeForce MX570.
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.
