GeForce MX570 vs Radeon Vega 7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Vega 7 and GeForce MX570, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX570 outperforms Vega 7 by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 536 | 356 |
| Place by popularity | 12 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.43 | 41.05 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cezanne | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 448 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 832 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1900 MHz | 1155 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 53.20 | 73.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.702 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 40 |
| TMUs | 28 | 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 | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 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 | 23
−78.3%
| 41
+78.3%
|
| 1440p | 25
−80%
| 45−50
+80%
|
| 4K | 15
−80%
| 27−30
+80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−100%
|
45−50
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
−110%
|
60−65
+110%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
−117%
|
35−40
+117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
−95.2%
|
40−45
+95.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
−33.3%
|
35−40
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 29
−107%
|
60−65
+107%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−100%
|
45−50
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
+41.7%
|
12
−41.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
−143%
|
68
+143%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−88.6%
|
80−85
+88.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
−154%
|
60−65
+154%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−129%
|
35−40
+129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
−173%
|
40−45
+173%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
−133%
|
100−110
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−71.4%
|
35−40
+71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Valorant | 14
−329%
|
60−65
+329%
|
| World of Tanks | 58
−233%
|
190−200
+233%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−100%
|
45−50
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−66.7%
|
55−60
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
−190%
|
60−65
+190%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
−225%
|
35−40
+225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−78.3%
|
100−110
+78.3%
|
| Valorant | 25
−140%
|
60−65
+140%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
−92.6%
|
100−110
+92.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−125%
|
35−40
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−147%
|
35−40
+147%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−109%
|
21−24
+109%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−191%
|
30−35
+191%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−44.4%
|
24−27
+44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−44.4%
|
24−27
+44.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how Vega 7 and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX570 is 78% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX570 is 80% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX570 is 80% 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 Vega 7 is 42% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX570 is 329% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Vega 7 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- GeForce MX570 is ahead in 50 tests (78%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (20%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.19 | 14.34 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 25 Watt |
Vega 7 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce MX570, on the other hand, has a 99.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 80% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 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.
