AMD Radeon HD 7570 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon HD 7570 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7570
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 8% higher core clock speed: 650 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 5x more pipelines: 480 vs 96
- 2.2x better floating-point performance: 624 gflops vs 288 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 25% lower typical power consumption: 60 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 46% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 611 vs 418
- 5.8x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 257 vs 44
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2724 vs 1963
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 3259
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2724 vs 1963
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 3259
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 5 January 2012 vs 1 December 2009 |
Core clock speed | 650 MHz vs 600 MHz |
Pipelines | 480 vs 96 |
Floating-point performance | 624 gflops vs 288 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 611 vs 418 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 257 vs 44 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2724 vs 1963 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 3259 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2724 vs 1963 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 3259 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M
- Around 85% higher texture fill rate: 28.8 GTexel / s vs 15.6 GTexel / s
- Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz vs 1600 MHz
Texture fill rate | 28.8 GTexel / s vs 15.6 GTexel / s |
Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 7570
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon HD 7570 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 611 | 418 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 257 | 44 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1548 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.874 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 259.769 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.487 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.033 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 57.396 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1389 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2724 | 1963 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3259 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1389 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2724 | 1963 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3259 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon HD 7570 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla |
Code name | Turks | G92 |
Launch date | 5 January 2012 | 1 December 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1260 | 1262 |
Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Price now | $49.95 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 22.55 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 600 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 624 gflops | 288 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 480 | 96 |
Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s | 28.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt | 75 Watt |
Transistor count | 716 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | 64.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | 2000 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
PowerMizer 8.0 |