Quadro FX 580 vs Radeon R9 380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Quadro FX 580, including specs and performance data.
R9 380 outperforms 580 by a whopping 3217% 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 | 393 | 1301 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.39 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.77 | 0.83 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Antigua | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 9 April 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 380 has 73800% better value for money than FX 580.
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 | 1792 | 32 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 970 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.6 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.476 TFLOPS | 0.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 112 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 32 KB |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 198 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length / dual slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 970 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 182.4 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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.
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 | 65
+6400%
| 1−2
−6400%
|
| 4K | 25 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.06
+6400%
| 199.00
−6400%
|
| 4K | 7.96 | no data |
- R9 380 has 6400% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3933%
|
3−4
−3933%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+3820%
|
5−6
−3820%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3933%
|
3−4
−3933%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 120−130
+3933%
|
3−4
−3933%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+3533%
|
3−4
−3533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+3450%
|
4−5
−3450%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+3625%
|
4−5
−3625%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16 | 0−1 |
This is how R9 380 and FX 580 compete in popular games:
- R9 380 is 6400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.60 | 0.41 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 9 April 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 40 Watt |
R9 380 has a 3217.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
FX 580, on the other hand, has 375% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 580 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
