Arc B580 vs Radeon Pro Vega II
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega II outperforms Arc B580 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 103 | 107 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.24 | 93.57 |
| Power efficiency | 5.88 | 14.57 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Xe2 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 16 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,199 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Arc B580 has 443% better value for money than Pro Vega II.
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 | 4096 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1574 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 440.3 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.09 TFLOPS | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 80 |
| TMUs | 256 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 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).
| Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | Quad-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 806 MHz | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 825.3 GB/s | 456.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | 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 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| 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 | 120−130
−4.2%
| 125
+4.2%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
+0%
| 70
+0%
|
| 4K | 40−45
−5%
| 42
+5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 18.33
−820%
| 1.99
+820%
|
| 1440p | 31.41
−783%
| 3.56
+783%
|
| 4K | 54.98
−827%
| 5.93
+827%
|
- Arc B580 has 820% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc B580 has 783% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc B580 has 827% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
This is how Pro Vega II and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- Arc B580 is 4% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- Arc B580 is 5% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 45 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.15 | 39.77 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 16 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 190 Watt |
Pro Vega II has a 1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Arc B580, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro Vega II and Arc B580.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation 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.
