Radeon HD 6570M vs R9 295X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 with Radeon HD 6570M, including specs and performance data.
R9 295X2 outperforms HD 6570M by a whopping 1461% 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 | 301 | 1055 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.22 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.25 | 3.47 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Vesuvius | Capilano |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 26 November 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2816 ×2 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1018 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 179.2 ×2 | 13.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 8 |
| TMUs | 176 ×2 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 40 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.1 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Length | 307 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 8-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 640 GB/s ×2 | 57.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
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 | 350−400
+1358%
| 24
−1358%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.28 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R9 295X2 and HD 6570M compete in popular games:
- R9 295X2 is 1358% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.08 | 1.35 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 26 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | 30 Watt |
R9 295X2 has a 1461% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6570M, on the other hand, has 1567% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6570M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6570M 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.
