ATI Radeon HD 5770 vs GeForce GTX 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 580 and Radeon HD 5770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 580 outperforms ATI HD 5770 by a whopping 171% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 416 | 674 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.07 | 0.89 |
| Power efficiency | 3.39 | 2.83 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Juniper |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (14 years ago) | 13 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 580 has 133% better value for money than ATI HD 5770.
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 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 772 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 49.41 | 34.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.581 TFLOPS | 1.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 40 |
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 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 208 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 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 | 1536 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2004 MHz (4008 data rate) | 4800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.4 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 53
+121%
| 24
−121%
|
| Full HD | 99
+98%
| 50
−98%
|
| 1200p | 78
+189%
| 27−30
−189%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.04
−58.5%
| 3.18
+58.5%
|
- ATI HD 5770 has 59% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+153%
|
18−20
−153%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+135%
|
16−18
−135%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+85.5%
|
55−60
−85.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+120%
|
70−75
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+108%
|
35−40
−108%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+153%
|
18−20
−153%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+135%
|
16−18
−135%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+85.5%
|
55−60
−85.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+108%
|
35−40
−108%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+153%
|
18−20
−153%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+135%
|
16−18
−135%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+85.5%
|
55−60
−85.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+175%
|
24−27
−175%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+166%
|
30−35
−166%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+123%
|
30−33
−123%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+173%
|
45−50
−173%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
This is how GTX 580 and ATI HD 5770 compete in popular games:
- GTX 580 is 121% faster in 900p
- GTX 580 is 98% faster in 1080p
- GTX 580 is 189% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 580 is 2900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 580 surpassed ATI HD 5770 in all 62 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.85 | 4.38 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 13 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 108 Watt |
GTX 580 has a 170.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
ATI HD 5770, on the other hand, has 125.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5770 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
