Arc A770 vs GeForce 8200M G

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8200M G with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

8200M G
2008
0.16
Arc A770
2022, $329
16 GB GDDR6, 225 Watt
32.04
+19925%

A770 outperforms 8200M G by a whopping 19925% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1500197
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data47.96
Power efficiencyno data11.02
Architectureno dataGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameMCP77MV MCP79MVLDG2-512
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 June 2008 (18 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.

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 cores84096
Core clock speed400 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistorsno data21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data225 Watt
Texture fill rateno data614.4
Floating-point processing powerno data19.66 TFLOPS
ROPsno data128
TMUsno data256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L2 Cacheno data16 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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data16 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512.0 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 Connectorsno data1x 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.

DirectX1012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-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.

8200M G 0.16
Arc A770 32.04
+19925%

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.

8200M G 65
Samples: 366
Arc A770 13350
+20438%
Samples: 1779

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 HD0−1102
1440p-0−159
4K-0−137

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.23
1440pno data5.58
4Kno data8.89

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 78
Palworld 2−3
−6250%
127
+6250%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 70
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1550%
33
+1550%
Palworld 2−3
−5200%
106
+5200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Valorant 24−27
−738%
200−210
+738%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
−2418%
270−280
+2418%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 61
Dota 2 8−9
−19900%
1600−1650
+19900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1450%
31
+1450%
Palworld 2−3
−4000%
82
+4000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3820%
196
+3820%
Valorant 24−27
−738%
200−210
+738%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 58
Dota 2 8−9
−19900%
1600−1650
+19900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1050%
23
+1050%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1340%
72
+1340%
Valorant 24−27
−738%
200−210
+738%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 2−3
−3850%
79
+3850%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−4400%
90
+4400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−8650%
170−180
+8650%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 15
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−5900%
60
+5900%

1440p
Epic

Palworld 0−1 60

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−220%
48
+220%
Valorant 4−5
−4750%
190−200
+4750%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−3800%
35−40
+3800%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−3800%
35−40
+3800%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 317
+0%
317
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 166
+0%
166
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Far Cry 5 117
+0%
117
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 143
+0%
143
+0%
Far Cry 5 109
+0%
109
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+0%
105
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 104
+0%
104
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Far Cry 5 82
+0%
82
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%

4K
Epic

Palworld 34
+0%
34
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A770 is 8650% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A770 performs better in 23 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 33 tests (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.16 32.04
Recency 3 June 2008 12 October 2022
Chip lithography 80 nm 6 nm

Arc A770 has a 19925% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1233% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200M G in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8200M G 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.

Community ratings

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


3.5 40 votes

Rate GeForce 8200M G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5529 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8200M G or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.