Quadro FX 580 vs Radeon HD 7970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970 with Quadro FX 580, including specs and performance data.
HD 7970 outperforms FX 580 by a whopping 2881% 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 | 416 | 1290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.10 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 3.82 | 0.80 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 9 January 2012 (13 years ago) | 9 April 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
HD 7970 has 20900% better value for money than FX 580.
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 | 2048 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 118.4 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.789 TFLOPS | 0.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 2.1 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 198 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 264 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 (1.2) | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 105
+3400%
| 3−4
−3400%
|
| Full HD | 93
+3000%
| 3−4
−3000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.90
+1024%
| 66.33
−1024%
|
- HD 7970 has 1024% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Sons of the Forest | 24−27 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+3600%
|
3−4
−3600%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 212
+2929%
|
7−8
−2929%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+4100%
|
2−3
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3600%
|
3−4
−3600%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+4100%
|
2−3
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3600%
|
3−4
−3600%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+3100%
|
3−4
−3100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+3250%
|
4−5
−3250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7970 and FX 580 compete in popular games:
- HD 7970 is 3400% faster in 900p
- HD 7970 is 3000% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.52 | 0.42 |
| Recency | 9 January 2012 | 9 April 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 40 Watt |
HD 7970 has a 2881% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
FX 580, on the other hand, has 650% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7970 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 580 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
