CPU
GPU
Arc A580
Popular choices:
Quadro M6000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc A580
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc A580 is significantly newer (2023 vs 2015). The Arc A580 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Arc A580 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M6000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%) |
| Longevity | 🔮Strong Longevity (Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) / 6nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (271mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Arc A580 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $179 versus $500 for the Quadro M6000, it costs 64% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 186.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+186.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($179) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Arc A580 and Quadro M6000
Arc A580
The Arc A580 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in October 10 2023. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1700 MHz to 2000 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 175W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 24 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,060 points.
Quadro M6000
The Quadro M6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 21 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 988 MHz to 1114 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,769 points. Launch price was $4,199.99.
Graphics Performance
The Arc A580 scores 12,060 and the Quadro M6000 reaches 11,769 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc A580 is built on Generation 12.7 while the Quadro M6000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 6 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (Arc A580) vs 3,072 (Quadro M6000). Raw compute: 12.29 TFLOPS (Arc A580) vs 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000). Boost clocks: 2000 MHz vs 1114 MHz.
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,060+2% | 11,769 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072 | 3072 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 12.29 TFLOPS+80% | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz+80% | 1114 MHz |
| ROPs | 96 | 96 |
| TMUs | 192 | 192 |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+167% | 3 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Arc A580 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M6000 has 12 GB. The Quadro M6000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 512 GB/s (Arc A580) vs 317 GB/s (Quadro M6000) — a 61.5% advantage for the Arc A580. Bus width: 256-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 8 MB (Arc A580) vs 3 MB (Quadro M6000) — the Arc A580 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 12 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 GB/s+62% | 317 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 384-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+167% | 3 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Arc A580) vs 12/1 (Quadro M6000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12/1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+18% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc A580) vs NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A580) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000).
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc A580 draws 175W versus the Quadro M6000's 250W — a 35.3% difference. The Arc A580 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 600W (Arc A580) vs 500W (Quadro M6000). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 271mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70 vs 80°C.
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 175W-30% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 600W | 500W-17% |
| Power Connector | 2x 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 271mm | 267mm |
| Height | 132mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 68.9+46% | 47.1 |
Value Analysis
The Arc A580 launched at $179 MSRP and currently averages $179, while the Quadro M6000 launched at $4999 and now averages $500. The Arc A580 costs 64.2% less ($321 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 67.4 (Arc A580) vs 23.5 (Quadro M6000) — the Arc A580 offers 186.8% better value. The Arc A580 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2015).
| Feature | Arc A580 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $179-96% | $4999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $179-64% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 67.4+187% | 23.5 |
| Codename | DG2-512 | GM200 |
| Release | October 10 2023 | March 21 2015 |
| Ranking | #223 | #228 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc A580 and Quadro M6000
