Arc A580 vs Radeon Pro W6400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6400 with Arc A580, including specs and performance data.
Arc A580 outperforms Pro W6400 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 271 | 187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 55 |
| Power efficiency | 29.07 | 12.22 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Navi 24 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 January 2022 (3 years ago) | 10 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
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 | 768 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 2331 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2331 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,400 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 111.9 | 384.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.58 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 48 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 24 |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 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 | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 512.0 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 | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| 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 | 6.6 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 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 | 70−75
−47.1%
| 103
+47.1%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−57.1%
| 55
+57.1%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−57.1%
| 33
+57.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 258
+0%
|
258
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 214
+0%
|
214
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 177
+0%
|
177
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6400 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:
- Arc A580 is 47% faster in 1080p
- Arc A580 is 57% faster in 1440p
- Arc A580 is 57% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.88 | 30.72 |
| Recency | 19 January 2022 | 10 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 175 Watt |
Pro W6400 has 250% lower power consumption.
Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 47.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6400 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A580 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.
