Quadro FX 580 vs Radeon R9 270X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Quadro FX 580, including specs and performance data.

R9 270X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 180 Watt
12.69
+2921%

R9 270X outperforms FX 580 by a whopping 2921% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3971253
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.870.01
Power efficiency4.860.72
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameCuracaoG96C
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)9 April 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 270X has 58600% better value for money than FX 580.

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 cores128032
Core clock speedno data450 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate84.007.200
Floating-point processing power2.688 TFLOPS0.072 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs8016

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s25.6 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 270X 12.69
+2921%
FX 580 0.42

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.

R9 270X 4877
+2910%
FX 580 162

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Valorant 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Dota 2 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Fortnite 70−75
+3500%
2−3
−3500%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+3033%
3−4
−3033%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Valorant 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
World of Tanks 170−180
+3340%
5−6
−3340%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Dota 2 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+3033%
3−4
−3033%
Valorant 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+4150%
2−3
−4150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12 0−1
World of Tanks 90−95
+4400%
2−3
−4400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 27−30 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−33 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Valorant 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9 0−1
Dota 2 21−24 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Fortnite 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 9−10 0−1
Valorant 12−14 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.69 0.42
Recency 8 October 2013 9 April 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 40 Watt

R9 270X has a 2921.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

FX 580, on the other hand, has 350% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 580 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop card while Quadro FX 580 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 R9 270X
Radeon R9 270X
NVIDIA Quadro FX 580
Quadro FX 580

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.


4 753 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 95 votes

Rate Quadro FX 580 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.