Arc A550M vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A550M outperforms GTX 590 by a whopping 184% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 504 | 231 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.75 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.64 | 28.35 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1024 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 | 262.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
| 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 | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s | 224.0 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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| 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 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 47
−177%
| 130−140
+177%
|
| Full HD | 108
−178%
| 300−350
+178%
|
| 1200p | 112
−168%
| 300−350
+168%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.47 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−207%
|
45−50
+207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−171%
|
75−80
+171%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−207%
|
45−50
+207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−218%
|
100−110
+218%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−210%
|
65−70
+210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−125%
|
50−55
+125%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−209%
|
95−100
+209%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−171%
|
75−80
+171%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−207%
|
45−50
+207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−111%
|
75−80
+111%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−143%
|
120−130
+143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−218%
|
100−110
+218%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−210%
|
65−70
+210%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
−183%
|
85−90
+183%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−129%
|
150−160
+129%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−125%
|
50−55
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−208%
|
80−85
+208%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−209%
|
95−100
+209%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
−98.4%
|
250−260
+98.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−171%
|
75−80
+171%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−207%
|
45−50
+207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−111%
|
75−80
+111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−218%
|
100−110
+218%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−210%
|
65−70
+210%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−129%
|
150−160
+129%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−209%
|
95−100
+209%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−282%
|
40−45
+282%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−317%
|
170−180
+317%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−229%
|
21−24
+229%
|
| World of Tanks | 60−65
−160%
|
160−170
+160%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−213%
|
50−55
+213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−300%
|
70−75
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−247%
|
65−70
+247%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−273%
|
55−60
+273%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−208%
|
35−40
+208%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−200%
|
65−70
+200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−126%
|
40−45
+126%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−126%
|
40−45
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−200%
|
75−80
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−126%
|
40−45
+126%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−126%
|
40−45
+126%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−244%
|
30−35
+244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−245%
|
35−40
+245%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−300%
|
30−35
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how GTX 590 and Arc A550M compete in popular games:
- Arc A550M is 177% faster in 900p
- Arc A550M is 178% faster in 1080p
- Arc A550M is 168% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A550M is 533% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A550M is ahead in 63 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.34 | 23.71 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 60 Watt |
Arc A550M has a 184.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 508.3% lower power consumption.
The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 590 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 590 is a desktop card while Arc A550M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
