RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Arc A350M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
13.35
RTX 2000 Ada Generation
2024, $649
16 GB GDDR6, 70 Watt
40.63
+204%

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms A350M by a whopping 204% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking425115
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data36.85
Power efficiency41.3144.90
ArchitectureXe-HPG (2022−2024)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameDG2-128AD107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date30 March 2022 (4 years ago)12 February 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores7682816
Core clock speed1150 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed2200 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate105.6187.4
Floating-point processing powerno data12 TFLOPS
ROPs2448
TMUs4888
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Cores622
L1 Cache1.1 MB2.8 MB
L2 Cache4 MB12 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.66.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.41.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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 HD36
−178%
100−110
+178%
1440p17
−194%
50−55
+194%
4K9
−200%
27−30
+200%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.49
1440pno data12.98
4Kno data24.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
−197%
220−230
+197%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
−196%
80−85
+196%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 27−30
−204%
85−90
+204%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
−188%
170−180
+188%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
−197%
220−230
+197%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
−189%
55−60
+189%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
−191%
160−170
+191%
Far Cry 5 42
−186%
120−130
+186%
Fortnite 75−80
−199%
230−240
+199%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−198%
170−180
+198%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
Valorant 110−120
−163%
300−310
+163%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
−188%
170−180
+188%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
−197%
220−230
+197%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
−196%
550−600
+196%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
−181%
45−50
+181%
Dota 2 62
−190%
180−190
+190%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
−191%
160−170
+191%
Far Cry 5 39
−182%
110−120
+182%
Fortnite 75−80
−199%
230−240
+199%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−198%
170−180
+198%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
−188%
75−80
+188%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−204%
85−90
+204%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
−202%
130−140
+202%
Valorant 110−120
−163%
300−310
+163%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
−188%
170−180
+188%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
−192%
35−40
+192%
Dota 2 59
−188%
170−180
+188%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
−191%
160−170
+191%
Far Cry 5 37
−197%
110−120
+197%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−198%
170−180
+198%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−189%
55−60
+189%
Valorant 110−120
−163%
300−310
+163%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
−199%
230−240
+199%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−188%
75−80
+188%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−105
−200%
300−310
+200%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−200%
30−33
+200%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−181%
45−50
+181%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−197%
300−310
+197%
Valorant 130−140
−169%
350−400
+169%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
−197%
110−120
+197%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−192%
35−40
+192%
Escape from Tarkov 27−30
−196%
80−85
+196%
Far Cry 5 25
−200%
75−80
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−203%
100−105
+203%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−189%
55−60
+189%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 30−33
−200%
90−95
+200%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−200%
27−30
+200%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
−173%
30−33
+173%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
−200%
45−50
+200%
Valorant 60−65
−197%
190−200
+197%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
−189%
55−60
+189%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−200%
27−30
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
Dota 2 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
Escape from Tarkov 12−14
−192%
35−40
+192%
Far Cry 5 12
−192%
35−40
+192%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−183%
65−70
+183%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−169%
35−40
+169%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
−169%
35−40
+169%

This is how Arc A350M and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 178% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 194% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.35 40.63
Recency 30 March 2022 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 70 Watt

Arc A350M has 180% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 204% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 79 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 100 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc A350M or RTX 2000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.