Arc A580 vs Quadro M5000

Place in the ranking	235	186
Place by popularity	not in top-100	55
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.32	no data
Power efficiency	11.19	12.18
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GM204	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	29 June 2015 (9 years ago)	10 October 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,856.99	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 cores	2048	3072
Core clock speed	861 MHz	1700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1038 MHz	2000 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	132.9	384.0
Floating-point processing power	4.252 TFLOPS	12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	96
TMUs	128	192
Tensor Cores	no data	384
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	24

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2" (5.1 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	2x 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	256 Bit	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 211 GB/s	512.0 GB/s

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	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync	no data
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

ECC (Error Correcting Code)	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
High-Performance Video I/O6	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.2	-
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.

Quadro M5000 23.90

Arc A580 30.36
+27%

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.

Quadro M5000 9404

Arc A580 11947
+27%

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	80−85 −32.5%	106 +32.5%
1440p	40−45 −35%	54 +35%
4K	24−27 −37.5%	33 +37.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	35.71	no data
1440p	71.42	no data
4K	119.04	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	149 +0%	149 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	98 +0%	98 +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	83 +0%	83 +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	80−85 +0%	80−85 +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	74 +0%	74 +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	80−85 +0%	80−85 +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%
Counter-Strike 2	67 +0%	67 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	53 +0%	53 +0%
Far Cry 5	114 +0%	114 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	87 +0%	87 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +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	24−27 +0%	24−27 +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%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +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	14−16 +0%	14−16 +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	10 +0%	10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	47 +0%	47 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	56 +0%	56 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

This is how Quadro M5000 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

Arc A580 is 33% faster in 1080p
Arc A580 is 35% faster in 1440p
Arc A580 is 38% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	23.90	30.36
Recency	29 June 2015	10 October 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	175 Watt

Quadro M5000 has 16.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 27% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.