Radeon Pro Vega II Duo vs GeForce GTX 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 580 with Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, including specs and performance data.
Pro II Duo outperforms GTX 580 by a whopping 195% 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 | 463 | 178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.84 | 2.40 |
| Power efficiency | 3.50 | 5.31 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Vega 20 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (15 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $4,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro Vega II Duo has 30% better value for money than GTX 580.
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 | 512 | 4096 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 772 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 13,230 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 475 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 49.41 | 440.3 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.581 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | 64 | 256 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 4 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 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 4096 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 2004 MHz (4008 data rate) | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.4 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s ×2 |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 53
−183%
| 150−160
+183%
|
| Full HD | 99
−193%
| 290−300
+193%
|
| 1200p | 78
−195%
| 230−240
+195%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.04
+201%
| 15.17
−201%
|
- GTX 580 has 201% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−195%
|
180−190
+195%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
−195%
|
65−70
+195%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−195%
|
180−190
+195%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−188%
|
190−200
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−192%
|
140−150
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−193%
|
120−130
+193%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−194%
|
300−310
+194%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−195%
|
180−190
+195%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−176%
|
450−500
+176%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−195%
|
230−240
+195%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−188%
|
190−200
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−192%
|
140−150
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−186%
|
120−130
+186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−193%
|
120−130
+193%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−193%
|
85−90
+193%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−194%
|
300−310
+194%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−195%
|
230−240
+195%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−192%
|
140−150
+192%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−193%
|
120−130
+193%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−193%
|
85−90
+193%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−194%
|
300−310
+194%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
−188%
|
190−200
+188%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−186%
|
60−65
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−194%
|
250−260
+194%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−169%
|
35−40
+169%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−182%
|
200−210
+182%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−187%
|
350−400
+187%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−183%
|
85−90
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−192%
|
70−75
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−192%
|
70−75
+192%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−195%
|
65−70
+195%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−183%
|
170−180
+183%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−193%
|
120−130
+193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−189%
|
55−60
+189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
This is how GTX 580 and Pro Vega II Duo compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega II Duo is 183% faster in 900p
- Pro Vega II Duo is 193% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega II Duo is 195% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.08 | 32.74 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 3 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 475 Watt |
GTX 580 has 95% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega II Duo, on the other hand, has a 195% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 2033% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 580 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
