Arc A580 vs Radeon R5 230
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 230 and Arc A580, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
A580 outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 5915% 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 | 1323 | 226 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.97 | 12.85 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Caicos | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 3 April 2014 (12 years ago) | 10 October 2023 (3 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 cores | 160 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 370 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.000 | 384.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 8 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 1.0 x4 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | 2x 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 10.67 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| PowerPlay | + | no data |
| DDMA audio | - | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| 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 | 1−2 | 103
+10200%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 56 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 149 | 149 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 331 | 331 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 73 | 73 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110 | 110 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 263 | 263 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65 | 65 |
| Far Cry 5 | 134 | 134 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107 | 107 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 79 | 79 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 129 | 129 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57 | 57 |
| Far Cry 5 | 122 | 122 |
| Far Cry 6 | 103 | 103 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102 | 102 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 86 |
| Metro Exodus | 97 | 97 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174 | 174 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 53 | 53 |
| Far Cry 5 | 114 | 114 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87 | 87 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68 | 68 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80 | 80 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210 | 200−210 |
| Far Cry 6 | 66 | 66 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37 | 37 |
| Metro Exodus | 57 | 57 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 220−230 | 220−230 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39 | 39 |
| Far Cry 5 | 87 | 87 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75 | 75 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55 | 55 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 70−75 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19 | 19 |
| Far Cry 6 | 37 | 37 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38 | 38 |
| Metro Exodus | 37 | 37 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61 | 61 |
| Valorant | 170−180 | 170−180 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21 | 21 |
| Far Cry 5 | 47 | 47 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56 | 56 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 30−35 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
This is how R5 230 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:
- Arc A580 is 10200% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.48 | 28.87 |
| Recency | 3 April 2014 | 10 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 175 Watt |
R5 230 has 89% lower power consumption.
Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 5915% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 85% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
