GeForce MX570 vs RTX A2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX A2000 with GeForce MX570, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms MX570 by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 155 | 368 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 91.33 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 34.34 | 41.16 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) | May 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3328 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 562 MHz | 832 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1155 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 124.8 | 73.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.987 TFLOPS | 4.731 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 40 |
| TMUs | 104 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | 104 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 26 | 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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 167 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 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 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | + | + |
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.
- Passmark
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 | 91
+133%
| 39
−133%
|
| 1440p | 43
+139%
| 18−20
−139%
|
| 4K | 28
+180%
| 10−12
−180%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.93 | no data |
| 1440p | 10.44 | no data |
| 4K | 16.04 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+54.1%
|
122
−54.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+155%
|
27−30
−155%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+185%
|
24−27
−185%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+95.1%
|
60−65
−95.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+77.4%
|
106
−77.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+155%
|
27−30
−155%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+130%
|
45−50
−130%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+83.8%
|
80−85
−83.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+117%
|
55−60
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+185%
|
24−27
−185%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+152%
|
50−55
−152%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+71.2%
|
110−120
−71.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+95.1%
|
60−65
−95.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+370%
|
40
−370%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+43.8%
|
190−200
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+155%
|
27−30
−155%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+109%
|
45−50
−109%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+83.8%
|
80−85
−83.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+117%
|
55−60
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+136%
|
45−50
−136%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+139%
|
54
−139%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+185%
|
24−27
−185%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+152%
|
50−55
−152%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117
+208%
|
35−40
−208%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+71.2%
|
110−120
−71.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+95.1%
|
60−65
−95.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+155%
|
27−30
−155%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+93.6%
|
45−50
−93.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+117%
|
55−60
−117%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+185%
|
24−27
−185%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+152%
|
50−55
−152%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+88.2%
|
34
−88.2%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+71.2%
|
110−120
−71.2%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+83.8%
|
80−85
−83.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+186%
|
27−30
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+116%
|
100−110
−116%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+31.6%
|
130−140
−31.6%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+62.3%
|
140−150
−62.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+157%
|
35−40
−157%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+153%
|
14−16
−153%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+171%
|
30−35
−171%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+115%
|
24−27
−115%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+158%
|
75−80
−158%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+155%
|
20−22
−155%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+140%
|
24−27
−140%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
This is how RTX A2000 and GeForce MX570 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 133% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 139% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 is 180% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A2000 is 370% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is ahead in 63 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.37 | 13.00 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 25 Watt |
RTX A2000 has a 133.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GeForce MX570, on the other hand, has 180% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX570 in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX A2000 is a workstation card while GeForce MX570 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
