NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 scored 74540, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 scored 15283. The delta is 387.7% in favor of the Quadro RTX 4000, a massive lead that reflects the generational gap between the two designs. This is not a close contest by any measure; the Quadro RTX 4000 delivers nearly five times the raw compute throughput in this workload.

Beyond that single head-to-head result, the database places each card in its own competitive context. The Quadro RTX 4000 has an average benchmark score of 17789 across ten recorded tests, while the GTX 580 has an average score of 15283 from a single test. The Quadro's percentile standing among all GPUs is 61, compared to 58 for the GTX 580. These percentile figures indicate that both cards sit in the lower-middle portion of the overall GPU distribution, but the Quadro RTX 4000 still holds a measurable edge in aggregate performance.

Looking at the Quadro RTX 4000's nearest rivals, it sits within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 560, the AMD Radeon 780M, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, and the AMD Radeon HD 7790. Its average score of 17789 is 0.7% above the HD 7790, 0.9% above the RTX 4060, 1.1% above the Radeon 780M, and 1.4% above the Radeon Pro 560. These are tight margins, meaning the Quadro RTX 4000 is clustered with a group of modern mainstream and older midrange parts rather than standing out from them.

The GTX 580's nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight clustering. Its average score of 15283 is essentially level with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (0.0% delta), 0.1% above the AMD Radeon 680M, 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, and 0.7% above the AMD Radeon RX 7600. The GTX 580, despite its age, lands in the same performance neighborhood as these much newer cards in this particular metric, though the single benchmark limitation means this comparison carries less statistical weight.

The Quadro RTX 4000's individual benchmark results reveal its strengths. In Geekbench Vulkan it scores 78844, slightly higher than its OpenCL score of 74540. PassMark G3D gives it 15117, while PassMark GPU Compute yields 6176. DirectX tests show lower numbers: PassMark DirectX 12 scores 52, DirectX 11 scores 128, DirectX 10 scores 108, and DirectX 9 scores 205. The PassMark G2D score is 846. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records 1873. These varied results show a card that is strong in compute-oriented and modern API workloads but less impressive in legacy DirectX rasterization tests.

The GTX 580 has no comparable breadth of data. Only the Geekbench OpenCL result of 15283 exists in the database, which severely limits direct comparison. Any analysis of the GTX 580's performance profile must therefore rely on that single point, plus the architectural specifications recorded for it.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 4000 wins decisively in compute workloads based on the available evidence. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 74540 versus 15283 for the GTX 580, a 387.7% advantage, demonstrates that the newer card dominates in general-purpose GPU compute. The Quadro's additional benchmark results also show strong Vulkan performance at 78844, indicating solid modern API support.

The Quadro RTX 4000 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 580 has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 192.4 GB/s. The Quadro offers more than double the bandwidth and more than five times the memory capacity, which matters for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-application workflows.

The GTX 580's only recorded win is the absence of data in most categories, which is not a performance advantage. In the one benchmark where both are measured, it loses by a wide margin. No recorded test shows the GTX 580 ahead of the Quadro RTX 4000. The GTX 580's percentile rank of 58 versus 61 for the Quadro RTX 4000 also places it slightly lower in the overall distribution.

The GTX 580 does hold one objective advantage: its legacy DirectX 12 (11_0) API support is older, but its OpenGL 4.6 support matches the Quadro's. However, the GTX 580 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database, while the Quadro RTX 4000 supports Vulkan 1.4. In modern API scenarios, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the only viable option.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA design. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 580 uses the GF110 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 40 nm process. The transistor counts reflect this gap: the Quadro packs 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, while the GTX 580 has 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.0M per mm² for the Quadro versus 5.8M per mm² for the GTX 580.

The Quadro RTX 4000 features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 36 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores, features that simply do not exist on the GTX 580. The GTX 580 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Pixel rate for the Quadro is 98.88 GPixel/s versus 24.70 GPixel/s for the GTX 580. Texture rate is 222.5 GTexel/s versus 49.41 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.119 TFLOPS versus 1.581 TFLOPS. The Quadro also supports FP16 at 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability the GTX 580 lacks entirely.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Quadro RTX 4000 has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. The GTX 580 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database. Memory clocks are also different: the Quadro runs at 1625 MHz with 13 Gbps effective data rate, while the GTX 580 runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

The power and physical profiles diverge sharply. The Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W, is single-slot, and requires a single 8-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W PSU. The GTX 580 has a TDP of 244 W, is dual-slot, requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The Quadro is also shorter at 241 mm (9.5 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the GTX 580, though both share the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

The Quadro RTX 4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 580 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the GTX 580 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. API support shows the Quadro with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 580 has DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for most workloads. The Quadro RTX 387.7% ahead of the GTX 580 in Geekbench OpenCL is the defining result. That is a lead so large that no amount of architectural analysis can bridge. For compute tasks, modern API workloads, modern display connectivity, and memory-intensive applications, the Quadro RTX RTX 4000 is the only sensible pick between these two cards.

The GTX 580's single recorded benchmark, 15283 in Geekbench OpenCL, places it within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 and essentially level with the RTX 2060. In isolation, the GTX 580 remains a functional performer in that narrow metric, competitive with modern mainstream cards. However, it has no wins in any recorded test against the Quadro RTX, and its 58th percentile versus 61st percentile ranking shows it slightly lower in overall performance distribution.

The Quadro RTX 580's nearest rivals, including the RTX 4060 at 0.9% delta and the Radeon 780M at 1.1%, show that it sits in a tight cluster of capable parts. But its 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 36 RT cores, and 8 GB GDDR6 memory put it in a different performance class entirely compared to the GTX 580.

The GTX 580 cannot handle modern ray tracing or tensor workloads, has no Vulkan support recorded, and carries a higher TDP of 244 W with a dual-slot design. The Quadro RTX 4000 supports ray tracing cores, tensor cores, Vulkan 1.4, and does so at 160 W TDP in a single-slot form factor. The practical advice is straightforward: choose the Quadro RTX 4000 for any modern workload. Choose the GTX 580 only if you specifically need legacy DVI output or are constrained to a PCIe 2.0 platform, and even then, the GTX 580's performance deficit in the only shared benchmark is overwhelming.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74540 versus 15283 for the GTX 580, a delta of 387.7% in favor of the Quadro RTX 4000.

Q: Does the GTX 580 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The GTX 580 has no RT cores or tensor cores recorded, while the Quadro RTX 4000 has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 580 has 1536 MB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 192.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 supports Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 580 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W, a single 8-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. The GTX 580 has a TDP of 244 W, a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector setup, and a suggested 550 W PSU.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17789, sitting 0.7% above the AMD Radeon HD 7790 and 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060. The GTX 580 averages 15283, level with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 and 0.1% above the AMD Radeon 680M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | TU104 | GF110 |

| Architecture | Turing | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 13,600 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 545 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1005 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1545 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1625 MHz, 13 Gbps effective | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 192.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 512 |

| TMUs | 144 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 36 | Not applicable |

| Tensor Cores | 288 | Not applicable |

| Pixel Rate | 98.88 GPixel/s | 24.70 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 222.5 GTexel/s | 49.41 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.119 TFLOPS | 1.581 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not applicable |

| TDP | 160 W | 244 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | Not recorded |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | 899 USD | 499 USD |