Arc A770 vs Arc A550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A550M with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.
A770 outperforms A550M by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 280 | 197 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 47.96 |
| Power efficiency | 29.25 | 11.02 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | DG2-512 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2022 (4 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2048 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 2100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2050 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,700 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 262.4 | 614.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.397 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 128 |
| TMUs | 128 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | 256 | 512 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB | 16 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 512.0 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 70−75
−45.7%
| 102
+45.7%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
−47.5%
| 59
+47.5%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−54.2%
| 37
+54.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.23 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.58 |
| 4K | no data | 8.89 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
−144%
|
317
+144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−56%
|
78
+56%
|
| Palworld | 55−60
−123%
|
127
+123%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50−55
−207%
|
166
+207%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−28.3%
|
110−120
+28.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
−108%
|
270
+108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−40%
|
70
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−53.9%
|
117
+53.9%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−27%
|
140−150
+27%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+179%
|
33
−179%
|
| Palworld | 55−60
−86%
|
106
+86%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−44.4%
|
130−140
+44.4%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−24.8%
|
200−210
+24.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−28.3%
|
110−120
+28.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
−10%
|
143
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
−9.5%
|
270−280
+9.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−22%
|
61
+22%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
−33.3%
|
160−170
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−43.4%
|
109
+43.4%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−27%
|
140−150
+27%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+197%
|
31
−197%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
−25%
|
105
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
−122%
|
113
+122%
|
| Palworld | 55−60
−43.9%
|
82
+43.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−44.4%
|
130−140
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
−188%
|
196
+188%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−24.8%
|
200−210
+24.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−28.3%
|
110−120
+28.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−16%
|
58
+16%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
−33.3%
|
160−170
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−36.8%
|
104
+36.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+300%
|
23
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−44.4%
|
130−140
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
−5.9%
|
72
+5.9%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−24.8%
|
200−210
+24.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
−27%
|
140−150
+27%
|
| Palworld | 55−60
−38.6%
|
79
+38.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−83.7%
|
90
+83.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−38.4%
|
220−230
+38.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45
+7.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−129%
|
71
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−0.6%
|
170−180
+0.6%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−22.8%
|
230−240
+22.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−32.3%
|
85−90
+32.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45
+95.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−54.7%
|
82
+54.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+293%
|
15
−293%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
−62.2%
|
60
+62.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
−50.9%
|
80−85
+50.9%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
−87.5%
|
60
+87.5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−21.7%
|
28
+21.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−11.6%
|
48
+11.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
−135%
|
47
+135%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−47.4%
|
27−30
+47.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−115%
|
73
+115%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−52.8%
|
190−200
+52.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−41.7%
|
50−55
+41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−56.5%
|
35−40
+56.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−160%
|
26
+160%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−29.9%
|
100−105
+29.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−81.5%
|
49
+81.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+400%
|
8
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−62.5%
|
35−40
+62.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−56%
|
35−40
+56%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−78.9%
|
34
+78.9%
|
This is how Arc A550M and Arc A770 compete in popular games:
- Arc A770 is 46% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770 is 48% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770 is 54% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A550M is 400% faster.
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A770 is 207% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A550M performs better in 5 tests (8%)
- Arc A770 performs better in 57 tests (92%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.69 | 32.04 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 225 Watt |
Arc A550M has 275% lower power consumption.
Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 41% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc A550M is a notebook graphics card while Arc A770 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.
