Arc B580 vs Radeon R4 (Beema)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Beema) with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
B580 outperforms R4 (Beema) by a whopping 3902% 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 | 1165 | 131 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 89.75 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.42 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | Beema | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 13 December 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 128 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 80 |
| TMUs | no data | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 5 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 18 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 8
−1488%
| 127
+1488%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−6800%
| 69
+6800%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4100%
| 42
+4100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.96 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.61 |
| 4K | no data | 5.93 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−5500%
|
112
+5500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4750%
|
97
+4750%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5900%
|
120−130
+5900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−17200%
|
173
+17200%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−16600%
|
160−170
+16600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2383%
|
140−150
+2383%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 193 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1589%
|
150−160
+1589%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−626%
|
220−230
+626%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 22
−1164%
|
270−280
+1164%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4000%
|
82
+4000%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−3829%
|
550−600
+3829%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5900%
|
120−130
+5900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−15900%
|
160
+15900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−16600%
|
160−170
+16600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2383%
|
140−150
+2383%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 174 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−10500%
|
106
+10500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1589%
|
150−160
+1589%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3833%
|
236
+3833%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−626%
|
220−230
+626%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3750%
|
77
+3750%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−3829%
|
550−600
+3829%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5900%
|
120−130
+5900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−14800%
|
149
+14800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2383%
|
140−150
+2383%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1589%
|
150−160
+1589%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1317%
|
85
+1317%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−626%
|
220−230
+626%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−16600%
|
160−170
+16600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3133%
|
95−100
+3133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−4400%
|
270−280
+4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1650%
|
170−180
+1650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 56 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10900%
|
110
+10900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3300%
|
68
+3300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−10100%
|
100−110
+10100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−457%
|
78
+457%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−4600%
|
230−240
+4600%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
This is how R4 (Beema) and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- Arc B580 is 1488% faster in 1080p
- Arc B580 is 6800% faster in 1440p
- Arc B580 is 4100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc B580 is 17200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc B580 performs better in 38 tests (66%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (34%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 38.02 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 13 December 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
Arc B580 has a 3902.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc B580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Beema) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R4 (Beema) is a notebook 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.
