Arc B580 vs Radeon Pro W6800X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6800X with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
Arc B580 outperforms Pro W6800X by a small 7% 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 | 155 | 134 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.18 | 87.95 |
| Power efficiency | 13.41 | 15.14 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (4 years ago) | 13 December 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,799 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Arc B580 has 1323% better value for money than Pro W6800X.
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 | 3840 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1800 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2087 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 500.9 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.03 TFLOPS | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 80 |
| TMUs | 240 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | 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).
| Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 272 mm |
| Width | Quad-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | Apple MPX | 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 | 32 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 456.0 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| 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.
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:
| Full HD | 110−120
−15.5%
| 127
+15.5%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
−15%
| 69
+15%
|
| 4K | 35−40
−20%
| 42
+20%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 25.45
−1198%
| 1.96
+1198%
|
| 1440p | 46.65
−1193%
| 3.61
+1193%
|
| 4K | 79.97
−1249%
| 5.93
+1249%
|
- Arc B580 has 1198% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc B580 has 1193% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc B580 has 1249% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 193
+0%
|
193
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+0%
|
149
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6800X and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- Arc B580 is 15% faster in 1080p
- Arc B580 is 15% faster in 1440p
- Arc B580 is 20% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.18 | 37.76 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | 13 December 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 190 Watt |
Pro W6800X has a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Arc B580, on the other hand, has a 7.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 5.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro W6800X and Arc B580.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6800X is a workstation graphics card while Arc B580 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
