Arc A580 vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with Arc A580, including specs and performance data.
A580 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 1099% 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 | 883 | 225 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 66 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.45 | 12.58 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 240 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 384.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 40 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 8 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 51
−102%
| 103
+102%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−1325%
| 57
+1325%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1550%
| 33
+1550%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82 | no data |
| 1440p | 99.74 | no data |
| 4K | 199.48 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−5417%
|
331
+5417%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1360%
|
73
+1360%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−1457%
|
109
+1457%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4283%
|
263
+4283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65
+1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1814%
|
134
+1814%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1033%
|
130−140
+1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−723%
|
107
+723%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−2360%
|
123
+2360%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−1014%
|
78
+1014%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−875%
|
110−120
+875%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−348%
|
180−190
+348%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2050%
|
129
+2050%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−481%
|
270−280
+481%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1040%
|
57
+1040%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1060%
|
290−300
+1060%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1643%
|
122
+1643%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1033%
|
130−140
+1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−685%
|
102
+685%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−2180%
|
114
+2180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−1620%
|
86
+1620%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−814%
|
64
+814%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2325%
|
97
+2325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−875%
|
110−120
+875%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1833%
|
174
+1833%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−348%
|
180−190
+348%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1060%
|
290−300
+1060%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1529%
|
114
+1529%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−569%
|
87
+569%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−657%
|
53
+657%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−875%
|
110−120
+875%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−656%
|
68
+656%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−348%
|
180−190
+348%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1033%
|
130−140
+1033%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80
+1233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1039%
|
200−210
+1039%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 57 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−661%
|
170−180
+661%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−967%
|
220−230
+967%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2075%
|
87
+2075%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1150%
|
75
+1150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1275%
|
55
+1275%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1725%
|
70−75
+1725%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−153%
|
38
+153%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1358%
|
170−180
+1358%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 21 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4600%
|
47
+4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−5500%
|
56
+5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and Arc A580 compete in popular games:
- Arc A580 is 102% faster in 1080p
- Arc A580 is 1325% faster in 1440p
- Arc A580 is 1550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A580 is 5500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A580 performs better in 52 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.37 | 28.42 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 10 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 175 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has 133.3% lower power consumption.
Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 1099.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
