Quadro M6000 vs Arc A580
Quadro M6000
Popular choices:
Arc A580
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 Quadro M6000
Performance Per Dollar Arc A580
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 | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) / 6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (271mm) |
💎 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 | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+186.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($179) |
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 Quadro M6000 and Arc A580
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M6000 scores 11,769 and the Arc A580 reaches 12,060 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M6000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Arc A580 uses Generation 12.7, both on 28 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (Quadro M6000) vs 3,072 (Arc A580). Raw compute: 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000) vs 12.29 TFLOPS (Arc A580). Boost clocks: 1114 MHz vs 2000 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,769 | 12,060+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072 | 3072 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.844 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS+80% |
| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 2000 MHz+80% |
| ROPs | 96 | 96 |
| TMUs | 192 | 192 |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 8 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro M6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A580 has 8 GB. The Quadro M6000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 317 GB/s (Quadro M6000) vs 512 GB/s (Arc A580) — a 61.5% advantage for the Arc A580. Bus width: 384-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Quadro M6000) vs 8 MB (Arc A580) — the Arc A580 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+50% | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 317 GB/s | 512 GB/s+62% |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+50% | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 8 MB+167% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12/1 (Quadro M6000) vs 12 Ultimate (Arc A580). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12/1 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A580). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000) vs AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A580).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M6000 draws 250W versus the Arc A580's 175W — a 35.3% difference. The Arc A580 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro M6000) vs 600W (Arc A580). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 271mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 175W-30% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W-17% | 600W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 267mm | 271mm |
| Height | 112mm | 132mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 47.1 | 68.9+46% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M6000 launched at $4999 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Arc A580 launched at $179 and now averages $179. The Arc A580 costs 64.2% less ($321 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.5 (Quadro M6000) vs 67.4 (Arc A580) — the Arc A580 offers 186.8% better value. The Arc A580 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A580 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4999 | $179-96% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $179-64% |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.5 | 67.4+187% |
| Codename | GM200 | DG2-512 |
| Release | March 21 2015 | October 10 2023 |
| Ranking | #228 | #223 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M6000 and Arc A580
