Arc B580 vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
Arc B580 outperforms P4000 Mobile by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 268 | 105 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.09 | 93.85 |
| Power efficiency | 14.35 | 14.65 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 December 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Arc B580 has 1060% better value for money than P4000 Mobile.
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 | 1792 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 80 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 456.0 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API 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 | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 60−65
−110%
| 126
+110%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−100%
| 70
+100%
|
| 4K | 18−21
−122%
| 40
+122%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 13.66
+591%
| 1.98
−591%
|
| 1440p | 23.42
+558%
| 3.56
−558%
|
| 4K | 45.53
+631%
| 6.23
−631%
|
- Arc B580 has 591% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc B580 has 558% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc B580 has 631% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.75 | 40.26 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 12 December 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 190 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has 90% lower power consumption.
Arc B580, on the other hand, has a 94% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc B580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Arc B580 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
