Arc A580 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	198	188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	55
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	18.55	no data
Power efficiency	19.67	12.19
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GP104	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (8 years ago)	10 October 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	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	1792	3072
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	1700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	2000 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	384.0
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	96
TMUs	112	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	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	512.0 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	4x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
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 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	+	1.3
CUDA	6.1	-
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 P4000 29.76

Arc A580 30.73
+3.3%

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 P4000 11577

Arc A580 11957
+3.3%

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	68 −55.9%	106 +55.9%
1440p	50−55 −8%	54 +8%
4K	30−35 −10%	33 +10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.99	no data
1440p	16.30	no data
4K	27.17	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 −86.3%	149 +86.3%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 −69%	98 +69%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 −17.7%	73 +17.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 −37.5%	110 +37.5%
Battlefield 5	100−110 −1.9%	100−110 +1.9%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 −43.1%	83 +43.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 −4.8%	65 +4.8%
Far Cry 5	90−95 −45.7%	134 +45.7%
Fortnite	130−140 −2.3%	130−140 +2.3%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +2.8%	107 −2.8%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 −3.7%	80−85 +3.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −2.7%	110−120 +2.7%
Valorant	180−190 −2.2%	180−190 +2.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 +1.3%	79 −1.3%
Battlefield 5	100−110 −1.9%	100−110 +1.9%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 −27.6%	74 +27.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	270−280 −0.7%	270−280 +0.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +8.8%	57 −8.8%
Dota 2	130−140 +0.8%	130−140 −0.8%
Far Cry 5	90−95 −32.6%	122 +32.6%
Fortnite	130−140 −2.3%	130−140 +2.3%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +7.8%	102 −7.8%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 −3.7%	80−85 +3.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +16.3%	86 −16.3%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −51.6%	97 +51.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −2.7%	110−120 +2.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	77 −126%	174 +126%
Valorant	180−190 −2.2%	180−190 +2.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	100−110 −1.9%	100−110 +1.9%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 −15.5%	67 +15.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +17%	53 −17%
Dota 2	130−140 +0.8%	130−140 −0.8%
Far Cry 5	90−95 −23.9%	114 +23.9%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +26.4%	87 −26.4%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 −3.7%	80−85 +3.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −2.7%	110−120 +2.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 −65.9%	68 +65.9%
Valorant	180−190 −2.2%	180−190 +2.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

130−140

−2.3%

130−140
+2.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	190−200 −3.1%	200−210 +3.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +43.2%	37 −43.2%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −46.2%	57 +46.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	220−230 −1.4%	220−230 +1.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 −2.6%	75−80 +2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −34.5%	39 +34.5%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −31.8%	87 +31.8%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 −4%	50−55 +4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −14.6%	55 +14.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

65−70

−4.3%

70−75
+4.3%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	21−24 −4.5%	21−24 +4.5%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +44.7%	38 −44.7%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −54.2%	37 +54.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −45.2%	61 +45.2%
Valorant	160−170 −3.6%	170−180 +3.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +30%	10 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −61.5%	21 +61.5%
Dota 2	85−90 −1.1%	90−95 +1.1%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −38.2%	47 +38.2%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −12%	56 +12%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 −3.6%	27−30 +3.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

30−35

−6.3%

30−35
+6.3%

This is how Quadro P4000 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

Arc A580 is 56% faster in 1080p
Arc A580 is 8% faster in 1440p
Arc A580 is 10% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 45% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A580 is 126% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is ahead in 10 tests (16%)
Arc A580 is ahead in 51 test (80%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	29.76	30.73
Recency	6 February 2017	10 October 2023
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	175 Watt

Quadro P4000 has 75% lower power consumption.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 3.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4000 and Arc A580.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.