GeForce GTX 670 vs Radeon RX 580 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 Mobile with GeForce GTX 670, including specs and performance data.
RX 580 Mobile outperforms GTX 670 by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 299 | 383 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 22.70 | 3.46 |
| Power efficiency | 13.36 | 5.59 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 10 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $301.69 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 580 Mobile has 556% better value for money than GTX 670.
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 | 2304 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1077 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 155.1 | 109.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.963 TFLOPS | 2.634 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 112 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 192.2 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 outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 77
+54%
| 50−55
−54%
|
| 4K | 30
+42.9%
| 21−24
−42.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.92
+104%
| 7.98
−104%
|
| 4K | 10.06
+88.9%
| 19.00
−88.9%
|
- RX 580 Mobile has 104% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 580 Mobile has 89% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Fortnite | 183
+40.8%
|
130−140
−40.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69
+53.3%
|
45−50
−53.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+46.3%
|
95−100
−46.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+40.6%
|
160−170
−40.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 76
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Fortnite | 81
+47.3%
|
55−60
−47.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+51.1%
|
45−50
−51.1%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+46.3%
|
95−100
−46.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
+53.3%
|
45−50
−53.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+46.3%
|
95−100
−46.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+47.8%
|
90−95
−47.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+41.7%
|
120−130
−41.7%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+45.8%
|
120−130
−45.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+47.1%
|
70−75
−47.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
This is how RX 580 Mobile and GTX 670 compete in popular games:
- RX 580 Mobile is 54% faster in 1080p
- RX 580 Mobile is 43% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.25 | 13.70 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 10 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 170 Watt |
RX 580 Mobile has a 40.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 580 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 670 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 580 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 670 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.
