Arc A580 vs Radeon Pro VII

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro VII with Arc A580, including specs and performance data.

Pro VII
2020
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
29.98
+10.1%

Pro VII outperforms Arc A580 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking192220
Place by popularitynot in top-10059
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.46no data
Power efficiency9.6512.51
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameVega 20DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date13 May 2020 (5 years ago)10 October 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,899 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores38403072
Core clock speed1400 MHz1700 MHz
Boost clock speed1700 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors13,230 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate408.0384.0
Floating-point processing power13.06 TFLOPS12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs240192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data24
L1 Cache960 KBno data
L2 Cache4 MB8 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length305 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB8 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth1024 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.31.3
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Pro VII 29.98
+10.1%
Arc A580 27.22

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.

Pro VII Samples: 46 13256
+10.1%
Arc A580 Samples: 234 12035

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 HD110−120
+6.8%
103
−6.8%
1440p60−65
+5.3%
57
−5.3%
4K35−40
+6.1%
33
−6.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p17.26no data
1440p31.65no data
4K54.26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 331
+0%
331
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 73
+0%
73
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 109
+0%
109
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 263
+0%
263
+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 5 123
+0%
123
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 78
+0%
78
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 129
+0%
129
+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 5 114
+0%
114
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 64
+0%
64
+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 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 53
+0%
53
+0%
Far Cry 5 114
+0%
114
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 87
+0%
87
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 53
+0%
53
+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 80
+0%
80
+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%
Hogwarts Legacy 39
+0%
39
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55
+0%
55
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 19
+0%
19
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 38
+0%
38
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+0%
18−20
+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 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how Pro VII and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

  • Pro VII is 7% faster in 1080p
  • Pro VII is 5% faster in 1440p
  • Pro VII is 6% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.98 27.22
Recency 13 May 2020 10 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 175 Watt

Pro VII has a 10.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro VII is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A580 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro VII is a workstation graphics card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro VII
Radeon Pro VII
Intel Arc A580
Arc A580

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.6 1941 votes

Rate Radeon Pro VII on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 479 votes

Rate Arc A580 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro VII or Arc A580, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.