Arc B580 vs Radeon Pro WX 4150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
B580 outperforms Pro 4150 by a whopping 525% 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 | 644 | 136 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 24 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 91.95 |
| Power efficiency | 9.55 | 15.72 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (9 years ago) | 13 December 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 80 |
| TMUs | 56 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 18 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 456.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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
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 | 18−20
−556%
| 118
+556%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−530%
| 63
+530%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−550%
| 39
+550%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.11 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.95 |
| 4K | no data | 6.38 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−1273%
|
206
+1273%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−613%
|
210−220
+613%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−762%
|
112
+762%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−887%
|
148
+887%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−393%
|
130−140
+393%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−613%
|
210−220
+613%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−646%
|
97
+646%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−811%
|
173
+811%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−345%
|
160−170
+345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−436%
|
150−160
+436%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−972%
|
193
+972%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−565%
|
150−160
+565%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−236%
|
230−240
+236%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−573%
|
101
+573%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−393%
|
130−140
+393%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−613%
|
210−220
+613%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−170%
|
270−280
+170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−531%
|
82
+531%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−500%
|
300−310
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−742%
|
160
+742%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−345%
|
160−170
+345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−436%
|
150−160
+436%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−867%
|
174
+867%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−536%
|
140
+536%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−783%
|
106
+783%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−565%
|
150−160
+565%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−1288%
|
236
+1288%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−236%
|
230−240
+236%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−393%
|
130−140
+393%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−492%
|
77
+492%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−500%
|
300−310
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−684%
|
149
+684%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−436%
|
150−160
+436%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−565%
|
150−160
+565%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−400%
|
85
+400%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−236%
|
230−240
+236%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−345%
|
160−170
+345%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−800%
|
95−100
+800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−469%
|
270−280
+469%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−1050%
|
69
+1050%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1140%
|
62
+1140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−349%
|
170−180
+349%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−322%
|
260−270
+322%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−900%
|
100−105
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1020%
|
56
+1020%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−817%
|
110
+817%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−640%
|
110−120
+640%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−750%
|
68
+750%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−758%
|
100−110
+758%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−520%
|
30−35
+520%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−359%
|
78
+359%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2000%
|
84
+2000%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−785%
|
230−240
+785%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1080%
|
59
+1080%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−722%
|
70−75
+722%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−783%
|
50−55
+783%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 4150 and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- Arc B580 is 556% faster in 1080p
- Arc B580 is 530% faster in 1440p
- Arc B580 is 550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc B580 is 4500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc B580 performs better in 58 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.17 | 38.59 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 13 December 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 190 Watt |
Pro WX 4150 has 280% lower power consumption.
Arc B580, on the other hand, has a 525% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc B580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Arc B580 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.
