Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs Arc A770

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A770 with Radeon AI PRO R9700, including specs and performance data.

Arc A770
2022, $329
16 GB GDDR6, 225 Watt
32.01
AI PRO R9700
2025, $1,299
32 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
65.45
+104%

AI PRO R9700 outperforms A770 by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking19829
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation47.2228.34
Power efficiency11.0516.95
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameDG2-512Navi 48
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date12 October 2022 (3 years ago)23 July 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 $1,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

Arc A770 has 67% better value for money than AI PRO R9700.

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 cores40964096
Core clock speed2100 MHz1660 MHz
Boost clock speed2400 MHz2920 MHz
Number of transistors21,700 million53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate614.4747.5
Floating-point processing power19.66 TFLOPS47.84 TFLOPS
ROPs128128
TMUs256256
Tensor Cores512128
Ray Tracing Cores3264
L0 Cacheno data1 MB
L2 Cache16 MB8 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 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 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 16-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s644.6 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.01x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI++

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
OpenCL3.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3
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.

Arc A770 32.01
AI PRO R9700 65.45
+104%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Arc A770 13363
Samples: 1826
AI PRO R9700 27326
+104%
Samples: 118

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 HD102200−210
+96.1%
1440p59
−50.8%
120−130
4K3775−80
+103%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.23
+50.3%
6.50
1440p5.58
+48.5%
10.83
4K8.89
+48.7%
17.32
  • Arc A770 has 50% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A770 has 48% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc A770 has 49% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 179 350−400
+95.5%
Counter-Strike 2 317 600−650
+89.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 78 150−160
+92.3%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 166 300−310
+80.7%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 132 260−270
+97%
Battlefield 5 110−120 240−250
+103%
Counter-Strike 2 270 550−600
+104%
Cyberpunk 2077 70 140−150
+100%
Far Cry 5 117 230−240
+96.6%
Fortnite 140−150 300−310
+104%
Forza Horizon 4 33 65−70
+97%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 260−270
+100%
Valorant 200−210 400−450
+97%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 99 200−210
+102%
Battlefield 5 110−120 240−250
+103%
Counter-Strike 2 143 290−300
+103%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 550−600
+98.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 61 120−130
+96.7%
Far Cry 5 109 220−230
+102%
Fortnite 140−150 300−310
+104%
Forza Horizon 4 31 60−65
+93.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 105 210−220
+100%
Metro Exodus 113 230−240
+104%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 260−270
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 196 400−450
+104%
Valorant 200−210 400−450
+97%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 240−250
+103%
Cyberpunk 2077 58 110−120
+89.7%
Far Cry 5 104 210−220
+102%
Forza Horizon 4 23 45−50
+95.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 260−270
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72 140−150
+94.4%
Valorant 200−210 400−450
+97%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150 300−310
+104%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90 180−190
+100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230 450−500
+97.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 45 90−95
+100%
Metro Exodus 71 140−150
+97.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 350−400
+100%
Valorant 230−240 450−500
+91.5%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 170−180
+97.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 45 90−95
+100%
Far Cry 5 82 160−170
+95.1%
Forza Horizon 4 15 30−33
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60 120−130
+100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85 160−170
+92.8%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 24−27 50−55
+92.3%
Counter-Strike 2 28 55−60
+96.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 48 95−100
+97.9%
Metro Exodus 47 95−100
+102%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73 140−150
+91.8%
Valorant 190−200 350−400
+79.5%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55 100−105
+96.1%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 70−75
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 26 50−55
+92.3%
Far Cry 5 49 100−105
+104%
Forza Horizon 4 8 16−18
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 80−85
+100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 80−85
+100%

This is how Arc A770 and AI PRO R9700 compete in popular games:

  • AI PRO R9700 is 96% faster in 1080p
  • AI PRO R9700 is 103% faster in 1440p
  • AI PRO R9700 is 103% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.01 65.45
Recency 12 October 2022 23 July 2025
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 300 Watt

Arc A770 has 25% lower power consumption.

AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has a 104% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 33% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A770 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A770 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon AI PRO R9700 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.


4.7 5532 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 40 votes

Rate Radeon AI PRO R9700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc A770 or Radeon AI PRO R9700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.