Arc B580 vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Arc B580, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc B580 outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a whopping 897% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 705 | 110 |
| Place by popularity | 60 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | 88.08 |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 14.43 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 16 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Arc B580 has 12665% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
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 | 192 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 80 |
| TMUs | 32 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 210 mm | 272 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 456.0 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 Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| 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.
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:
| 900p | 38
−821%
| 350−400
+821%
|
| Full HD | 37
−238%
| 125
+238%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−1033%
| 68
+1033%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−950%
| 42
+950%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.03
−102%
| 1.99
+102%
|
| 1440p | 24.83
−578%
| 3.66
+578%
|
| 4K | 37.25
−528%
| 5.93
+528%
|
- Arc B580 has 102% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc B580 has 578% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc B580 has 528% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−2189%
|
206
+2189%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1414%
|
210−220
+1414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1300%
|
112
+1300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−1544%
|
148
+1544%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−760%
|
120−130
+760%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1414%
|
210−220
+1414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1113%
|
97
+1113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1822%
|
173
+1822%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−676%
|
160−170
+676%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−700%
|
140−150
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−2044%
|
193
+2044%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−825%
|
140−150
+825%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−315%
|
220−230
+315%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−1022%
|
101
+1022%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−760%
|
120−130
+760%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1414%
|
210−220
+1414%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−307%
|
270−280
+307%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−925%
|
82
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−782%
|
300−310
+782%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1678%
|
160
+1678%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−676%
|
160−170
+676%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−700%
|
140−150
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−1833%
|
174
+1833%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−1067%
|
140
+1067%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−1414%
|
106
+1414%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−825%
|
140−150
+825%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−2045%
|
236
+2045%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−315%
|
220−230
+315%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−760%
|
120−130
+760%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−863%
|
77
+863%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−782%
|
300−310
+782%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1556%
|
149
+1556%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−700%
|
140−150
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−825%
|
140−150
+825%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−673%
|
85
+673%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−315%
|
220−230
+315%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−676%
|
160−170
+676%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−818%
|
250−260
+818%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2200%
|
69
+2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−483%
|
170−180
+483%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−530%
|
250−260
+530%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1767%
|
56
+1767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110
+1471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1078%
|
100−110
+1078%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1260%
|
68
+1260%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−1300%
|
95−100
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−388%
|
78
+388%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−1095%
|
220−230
+1095%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−817%
|
110−120
+817%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1375%
|
59
+1375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1100%
|
45−50
+1100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- Arc B580 is 821% faster in 900p
- Arc B580 is 238% faster in 1080p
- Arc B580 is 1033% faster in 1440p
- Arc B580 is 950% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc B580 is 3000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc B580 is ahead in 54 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.48 | 34.71 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 16 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 190 Watt |
GTX 550 Ti has 63.8% lower power consumption.
Arc B580, on the other hand, has a 897.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc B580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti 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.
