GeForce GTX 580 vs Arc Graphics 130V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 130V with GeForce GTX 580, including specs and performance data.
GTX 580 outperforms Graphics 130V by a minimal 3% 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 | 469 | 463 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.84 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.50 |
| Architecture | Xe² (2024) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Lunar Lake iGPU | GF110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 September 2024 (1 year ago) | 9 November 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
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 | 7 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 772 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1850 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 3 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 244 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 49.41 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.581 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 768 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | LPDDR5x | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2004 MHz (4008 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.4 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 | no data | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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:
| 900p | 50−55
−6%
| 53
+6%
|
| Full HD | 34
−191%
| 99
+191%
|
| 1200p | 75−80
−4%
| 78
+4%
|
| 1440p | 23
+9.5%
| 21−24
−9.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.04 |
| 1440p | no data | 23.76 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 51
−19.6%
|
60−65
+19.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
−29.8%
|
60−65
+29.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+16.2%
|
35−40
−16.2%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−1.5%
|
65−70
+1.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−5.1%
|
40−45
+5.1%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
−2%
|
100−110
+2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
−144%
|
60−65
+144%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−1.9%
|
160−170
+1.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−1.5%
|
65−70
+1.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
−5%
|
40−45
+5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−5.1%
|
40−45
+5.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
−2%
|
100−110
+2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
−2.8%
|
35−40
+2.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−5.1%
|
40−45
+5.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
−2%
|
100−110
+2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
−1.5%
|
65−70
+1.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−3.7%
|
85−90
+3.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−9.2%
|
70−75
+9.2%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−2.5%
|
120−130
+2.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−3.4%
|
60−65
+3.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 130V and GTX 580 compete in popular games:
- GTX 580 is 6% faster in 900p
- GTX 580 is 191% faster in 1080p
- GTX 580 is 4% faster in 1200p
- Arc Graphics 130V is 10% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc Graphics 130V is 16% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 580 is 144% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 130V performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- GTX 580 performs better in 42 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.76 | 11.08 |
| Recency | 24 September 2024 | 9 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1536 MB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 40 nm |
Arc Graphics 130V has an age advantage of 13 years, a 967% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1233% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 580, on the other hand, has a 3% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Arc Graphics 130V and GeForce GTX 580.
Be aware that Arc Graphics 130V is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 580 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.
