Arc A580 vs GeForce GTX 465

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 465 and Arc A580, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 465
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
5.94

Arc A580 outperforms GTX 465 by a whopping 348% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking575195
Place by popularitynot in top-10058
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.07no data
Power efficiency2.3512.09
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGF100DG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date31 May 2010 (14 years ago)10 October 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3523072
Core clock speed607 MHz1700 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt175 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate26.75384.0
Floating-point processing power0.8554 TFLOPS12.29 TFLOPS
Compute performance30xno data
ROPs3296
TMUs44192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data24

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 supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pin2x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1603 MHz (3206 data rate)2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.6 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIMini HDMI1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-
DLSS-+

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.

GTX 465 5.94
Arc A580 26.64
+348%

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.

GTX 465 2653
Arc A580 11904
+349%

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 HD21−24
−390%
103
+390%
1440p12−14
−367%
56
+367%
4K7−8
−371%
33
+371%

Cost per frame, $

1080p13.29no data
1440p23.25no data
4K39.86no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 149
+0%
149
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 331
+0%
331
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 73
+0%
73
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 110
+0%
110
+0%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 263
+0%
263
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 65
+0%
65
+0%
Far Cry 5 134
+0%
134
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 107
+0%
107
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 123
+0%
123
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 79
+0%
79
+0%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 129
+0%
129
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 57
+0%
57
+0%
Far Cry 5 122
+0%
122
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 102
+0%
102
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 114
+0%
114
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 97
+0%
97
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 174
+0%
174
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 53
+0%
53
+0%
Far Cry 5 114
+0%
114
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 87
+0%
87
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 68
+0%
68
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 80
+0%
80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 87
+0%
87
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75
+0%
75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55
+0%
55
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 19
+0%
19
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 38
+0%
38
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+0%
61
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how GTX 465 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A580 is 390% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A580 is 367% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A580 is 371% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.94 26.64
Recency 31 May 2010 10 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 175 Watt

Arc A580 has a 348.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 14.3% lower power consumption.

The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 465 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465
GeForce GTX 465
Intel Arc A580
Arc A580

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.


3.7 103 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 465 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 370 votes

Rate Arc A580 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 465 or Arc A580, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.