Arc A580 vs GeForce GT 625M

Place in the ranking	1046	185
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	N13M-GS	DG2-512
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 October 2012 (11 years ago)	10 October 2023 (less than a year ago)

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	96	3072
CUDA cores	96	no data
Core clock speed	Up to 625 MHz	1700 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	384.0
Floating-point processing power	0.24 gflops	no data
ROPs	4	96
TMUs	16	192

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
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	16000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 14.4 GB/s	512.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	Up to 2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray	+	-
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 625M 1.24

Arc A580 30.14
+2331%

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.

GT 625M 478

Arc A580 11626
+2332%

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.

GT 625M 921

Arc A580 35210
+3723%

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	4−5 −2550%	106 +2550%
1440p	2−3 −2850%	59 +2850%
4K	1−2 −3300%	34 +3300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−2233%

70−75
+2233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1617%	103 +1617%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2000%	80−85 +2000%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −8800%	85−90 +8800%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −3300%	100−110 +3300%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −9750%	190−200 +9750%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1383%	85−90 +1383%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −1121%	170−180 +1121%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −4650%	95−100 +4650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −1825%	150−160 +1825%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −300%	130−140 +300%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1600%	102 +1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2000%	80−85 +2000%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −8800%	85−90 +8800%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −3300%	100−110 +3300%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −9750%	190−200 +9750%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1383%	85−90 +1383%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −1121%	170−180 +1121%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −4650%	95−100 +4650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2575%	214 +2575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −682%	85−90 +682%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −300%	130−140 +300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −967%	64 +967%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2000%	80−85 +2000%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −8800%	85−90 +8800%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −4250%	87 +4250%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1383%	85−90 +1383%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −679%	109 +679%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2113%	177 +2113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −518%	68 +518%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −81.8%	60 +81.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−4650%

95−100
+4650%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −8000%	80−85 +8000%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −3100%	60−65 +3100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −5300%	54 +5300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	45−50
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −4700%	45−50 +4700%
Hitman 3	7−8 −686%	55−60 +686%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −2075%	87 +2075%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	55
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −3200%	190−200 +3200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1700%

70−75
+1700%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

35−40

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −3400%	35 +3400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2900%	30 +2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	27−30
Far Cry 5	0−1	24−27

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1133%

35−40
+1133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	85 +0%	85 +0%
Battlefield 5	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73 +0%	73 +0%
Battlefield 5	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	51 +0%	51 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130 +0%	130 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	61 +0%	61 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	56 +0%	56 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	73 +0%	73 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27 +0%	27 +0%

This is how GT 625M and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

Arc A580 is 2550% faster in 1080p
Arc A580 is 2850% faster in 1440p
Arc A580 is 3300% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A580 is 9750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A580 is ahead in 42 tests (69%)
there's a draw in 19 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.24	30.14
Recency	1 October 2012	10 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	175 Watt

GT 625M has 1066.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 2330.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 625M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 625M is a notebook card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.