Arc B580 vs GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 Mobile outperforms Arc B580 by a moderate 14% 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 | 96 | 129 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 87.62 |
| Power efficiency | 64.70 | 14.98 |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | GB207 | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 June 2025 (recently) | 13 December 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 2235 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2520 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 201.6 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.9 TFLOPS | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 80 |
| TMUs | 80 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | 80 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 20 | 20 |
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 | PCIe 5.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 456.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 12.0 | - |
| DLSS | + | + |
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.
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 | 140−150
+10.2%
| 127
−10.2%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+8.7%
| 69
−8.7%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+7.1%
| 42
−7.1%
|
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 Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+10.8%
|
210−220
−10.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
−9.8%
|
112
+9.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 90−95
−46.7%
|
132
+46.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+7.6%
|
130−140
−7.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+10.8%
|
210−220
−10.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+5.2%
|
97
−5.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
−25.4%
|
173
+25.4%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+12.1%
|
160−170
−12.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+12.9%
|
140−150
−12.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
−44%
|
193
+44%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+9.3%
|
150−160
−9.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 90−95
−10%
|
99
+10%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+9.4%
|
220−230
−9.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+7.6%
|
130−140
−7.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+10.8%
|
210−220
−10.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+24.4%
|
82
−24.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
−15.9%
|
160
+15.9%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+12.1%
|
160−170
−12.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+12.9%
|
140−150
−12.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
−29.9%
|
174
+29.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
−2.2%
|
140
+2.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
−1%
|
106
+1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+9.3%
|
150−160
−9.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 90−95
−2.2%
|
92
+2.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
−48.4%
|
236
+48.4%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+9.4%
|
220−230
−9.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+7.6%
|
130−140
−7.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+32.5%
|
77
−32.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
−8%
|
149
+8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+12.9%
|
140−150
−12.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+9.3%
|
150−160
−9.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 90−95
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+87.1%
|
85
−87.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 180−190
+12.1%
|
160−170
−12.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+18.8%
|
95−100
−18.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+14.4%
|
260−270
−14.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+29%
|
69
−29%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+4.8%
|
62
−4.8%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+7.8%
|
250−260
−7.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+10.2%
|
95−100
−10.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−7.7%
|
56
+7.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
−3.8%
|
110
+3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+17.6%
|
100−110
−17.6%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 65−70
−1.5%
|
68
+1.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+26.5%
|
68
−26.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+17%
|
100−105
−17%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+18.2%
|
40−45
−18.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+23.1%
|
78
−23.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−15%
|
46
+15%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
−18.3%
|
84
+18.3%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+12.5%
|
230−240
−12.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−25%
|
30
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+18.1%
|
70−75
−18.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+23.5%
|
50−55
−23.5%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40−45
+5.1%
|
39
−5.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+20.4%
|
45−50
−20.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how RTX 5050 Mobile and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 10% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 9% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 7% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5050 Mobile is 87% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc B580 is 48% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5050 Mobile is ahead in 38 tests (61%)
- Arc B580 is ahead in 18 tests (29%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 42.14 | 37.07 |
| Recency | 24 June 2025 | 13 December 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 190 Watt |
RTX 5050 Mobile has a 13.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and 280% lower power consumption.
Arc B580, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc B580 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile 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.
