Arc A580 vs Radeon R9 M485X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M485X with Arc A580, including specs and performance data.
Arc A580 outperforms R9 M485X by a whopping 227% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 473 | 186 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 55 |
| Power efficiency | 2.62 | 12.25 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 May 2016 (8 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 | 2048 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 384.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 128 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 512.0 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 | 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 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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 | 30−35
−243%
| 103
+243%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−244%
| 55
+244%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−230%
| 33
+230%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−476%
|
98
+476%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−190%
|
90−95
+190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−388%
|
83
+388%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−597%
|
258
+597%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−415%
|
134
+415%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−160%
|
65−70
+160%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−244%
|
120−130
+244%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−190%
|
90−95
+190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−335%
|
74
+335%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−153%
|
86
+153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−61.5%
|
63
+61.5%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−163%
|
140−150
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−478%
|
214
+478%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−153%
|
86
+153%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−273%
|
97
+273%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−143%
|
180−190
+143%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−160%
|
65−70
+160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−262%
|
100−110
+262%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−244%
|
120−130
+244%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
−97.8%
|
270−280
+97.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−190%
|
90−95
+190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−294%
|
67
+294%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−123%
|
85−90
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−378%
|
177
+378%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−143%
|
180−190
+143%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−244%
|
120−130
+244%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−208%
|
37
+208%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−185%
|
37
+185%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−298%
|
170−180
+298%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
−196%
|
200−210
+196%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−239%
|
60−65
+239%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−385%
|
95−100
+385%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−519%
|
130
+519%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−264%
|
50−55
+264%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−406%
|
91
+406%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−323%
|
55
+323%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−275%
|
90−95
+275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−90%
|
38
+90%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−90%
|
38
+90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−246%
|
95−100
+246%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−90%
|
38
+90%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−325%
|
30−35
+325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−291%
|
40−45
+291%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−310%
|
40−45
+310%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−508%
|
73
+508%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−300%
|
27−30
+300%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how R9 M485X and Arc A580 compete in popular games:
- Arc A580 is 243% faster in 1080p
- Arc A580 is 244% faster in 1440p
- Arc A580 is 230% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A580 is 825% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A580 is ahead in 55 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.36 | 30.62 |
| Recency | 15 May 2016 | 10 October 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 175 Watt |
Arc A580 has a 227.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.
The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M485X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M485X is a notebook 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.
