Arc B580 vs Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

Place in the ranking	256	100
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	93.08
Power efficiency	24.84	14.69
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Xe2 (2025)
GPU code name	TU106	BMG-G21
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)	16 January 2025 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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	2304	2560
Core clock speed	600 MHz	2670 MHz
Boost clock speed	1215 MHz	2670 MHz
Number of transistors	10,800 million	19,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	175.0	427.2
Floating-point processing power	5.599 TFLOPS	13.67 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	80
TMUs	144	160
Tensor Cores	288	160
Ray Tracing Cores	36	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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	272 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	12 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	2375 MHz
Memory bandwidth	448.0 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	-	+
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.4
CUDA	7.5	-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RTX 3000 Max-Q 21.68

Arc B580 40.60
+87.3%

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.

RTX 3000 Max-Q 8333

Arc B580 15607
+87.3%

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	74 −68.9%	125 +68.9%
1440p	45 −53.3%	69 +53.3%
4K	33 −30.3%	43 +30.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	1.99
1440p	no data	3.61
4K	no data	5.79

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −267%	143 +267%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −86%	80−85 +86%
Elden Ring	70−75 −85.7%	130−140 +85.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	63 −68.3%	100−110 +68.3%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −200%	117 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	26 −73.1%	45−50 +73.1%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −84.8%	170−180 +84.8%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −67.2%	95−100 +67.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 −2.6%	75−80 +2.6%
Valorant	119 −37%	160−170 +37%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −55.9%	100−110 +55.9%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −167%	104 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	22 −81.8%	40−45 +81.8%
Dota 2	99 −41.4%	140 +41.4%
Elden Ring	70−75 −104%	140−150 +104%
Far Cry 5	80 +15.9%	69 −15.9%
Fortnite	110−120 −57.1%	170−180 +57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −84.8%	170−180 +84.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	85 −76.5%	150−160 +76.5%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +61.1%	36 −61.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −43%	200−210 +43%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −61.2%	75−80 +61.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65−70 −110%	140−150 +110%
Valorant	85−90 −87.4%	160−170 +87.4%
World of Tanks	240−250 −15.8%	270−280 +15.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 −89.3%	100−110 +89.3%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −144%	95 +144%
Cyberpunk 2077	18 −66.7%	30−33 +66.7%
Dota 2	120 −83.3%	220−230 +83.3%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −41.4%	95−100 +41.4%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −84.8%	170−180 +84.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −43%	200−210 +43%
Valorant	103 −58.3%	160−170 +58.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	49 −40.8%	69 +40.8%
Elden Ring	35−40 −127%	80−85 +127%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 −83.7%	90−95 +83.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −73.4%	300−310 +73.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −105%	40−45 +105%
World of Tanks	140−150 −77.9%	250−260 +77.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45 −64.4%	70−75 +64.4%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −90.6%	61 +90.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −66.7%	30−33 +66.7%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −120%	130−140 +120%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −78.6%	100−105 +78.6%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −77.6%	85−90 +77.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −77.4%	55−60 +77.4%
Valorant	68 −91.2%	130−140 +91.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −133%	40−45 +133%
Dota 2	65 −20%	78 +20%
Elden Ring	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	65 −84.6%	120−130 +84.6%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −188%	46 +188%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −103%	130−140 +103%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −92.9%	27−30 +92.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65 −84.6%	120−130 +84.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24 −100%	45−50 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −133%	40−45 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 −80%	9−10 +80%
Dota 2	76 −84.2%	140−150 +84.2%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −118%	60−65 +118%
Fortnite	24−27 −123%	55−60 +123%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −81.8%	60−65 +81.8%
Valorant	32 −116%	65−70 +116%

This is how RTX 3000 Max-Q and Arc B580 compete in popular games:

Arc B580 is 69% faster in 1080p
Arc B580 is 53% faster in 1440p
Arc B580 is 30% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3000 Max-Q is 61% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc B580 is 267% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3000 Max-Q is ahead in 2 tests (5%)
Arc B580 is ahead in 41 test (95%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	21.68	40.60
Recency	27 May 2019	16 January 2025
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	12 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	190 Watt

RTX 3000 Max-Q has 216.7% lower power consumption.

Arc B580, on the other hand, has a 87.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc B580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q 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.