Radeon RX Vega M vs GeForce GTX 580M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 580M SLI with Radeon RX Vega M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 580M SLI
2011
100 Watt
8.93

M outperforms 580M SLI by an impressive 76% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking540385
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.9581.41
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameN12E-GTX2Vega
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date6 January 2011 (15 years ago)1 February 2018 (8 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores768512
Core clock speed620 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1190 MHz
Number of transistorsno data4,500 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rateno data38.08
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data32

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataIGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Shared memory-no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1112.0
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0

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:

900p68
−38.2%
110−120
Full HD93
−41.9%
160−170
1200p81
−42.1%
140−150

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 21−24 35−40
+59.1%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 80−85
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 30−33
+57.9%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18 27−30
+58.8%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 21−24 35−40
+59.1%
Battlefield 5 40−45 70−75
+75%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 80−85
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 30−33
+57.9%
Far Cry 5 27−30 50−55
+72.4%
Fortnite 50−55 90−95
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 70−75
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 55−60
+71.9%
Valorant 85−90 150−160
+72.4%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 21−24 35−40
+59.1%
Battlefield 5 40−45 70−75
+75%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 80−85
+66.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140 240−250
+72.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 30−33
+57.9%
Dota 2 65−70 110−120
+64.2%
Far Cry 5 27−30 50−55
+72.4%
Fortnite 50−55 90−95
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 70−75
+75%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35 55−60
+66.7%
Metro Exodus 18−20 30−33
+66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 55−60
+71.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 40−45
+73.9%
Valorant 85−90 150−160
+72.4%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 70−75
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 30−33
+57.9%
Dota 2 65−70 110−120
+64.2%
Far Cry 5 27−30 50−55
+72.4%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 70−75
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 55−60
+71.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 40−45
+73.9%
Valorant 85−90 150−160
+72.4%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 50−55 90−95
+66.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18 27−30
+58.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70 120−130
+73.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14 21−24
+75%
Metro Exodus 10−11 16−18
+60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 80−85
+70.2%
Valorant 90−95 150−160
+66.7%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24 35−40
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 12−14
+71.4%
Far Cry 5 18−20 30−33
+57.9%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 35−40
+59.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 21−24
+75%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20 30−33
+57.9%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 7−8 12−14
+71.4%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 5−6
+66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 30−33
+57.9%
Metro Exodus 4−5 7−8
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 16−18
+60%
Valorant 40−45 70−75
+75%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12 18−20
+63.6%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 5−6
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 5−6
+66.7%
Dota 2 30−35 55−60
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 9−10 14−16
+55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 24−27
+60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 14−16
+55.6%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10 14−16
+55.6%

This is how GTX 580M SLI and RX Vega M compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega M is 62% faster in 900p
  • RX Vega M is 72% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega M is 73% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.93 15.68
Recency 6 January 2011 1 February 2018
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

RX Vega M has a 76% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 65% more advanced lithography process, and 85% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 580M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 580M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX Vega M is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 580M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.7 9 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 580M SLI or Radeon RX Vega M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.