Arc B570 vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) with Arc B570, including specs and performance data.
Arc B570 outperforms R7 (Carrizo) by a whopping 1826% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 893 | 118 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | 3.97 | 17.83 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Xe2 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 16 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 512 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 360.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 11.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 80 |
| TMUs | no data | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 144 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 18 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| 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 | 10 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 160 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 380.0 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 data | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
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 |
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 | 10
−1800%
| 190−200
+1800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.15 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1809%
|
210−220
+1809%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1800%
|
190−200
+1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1809%
|
210−220
+1809%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−1650%
|
350−400
+1650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| World of Tanks | 24
−1775%
|
450−500
+1775%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1809%
|
210−220
+1809%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−1650%
|
350−400
+1650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−1775%
|
600−650
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1775%
|
300−310
+1775%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1767%
|
280−290
+1767%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−1767%
|
280−290
+1767%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1775%
|
300−310
+1775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
This is how R7 (Carrizo) and Arc B570 compete in popular games:
- Arc B570 is 1800% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.02 | 38.90 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 16 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 150 Watt |
R7 (Carrizo) has 1150% lower power consumption.
Arc B570, on the other hand, has a 1825.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc B570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 (Carrizo) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is a notebook card while Arc B570 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
