Arc A310 vs GeForce GT 425M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 425M with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.
A310 outperforms 425M by a whopping 992% 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 | 1111 | 432 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.04 | 33.78 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 96 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 560 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.960 | 56.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.215 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 124.0 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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | - |
| 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 11
−991%
| 120−130
+991%
|
| Full HD | 17
−118%
| 37
+118%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−660%
|
38
+660%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−5700%
|
55−60
+5700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2450%
|
51
+2450%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2433%
|
75−80
+2433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−700%
|
55−60
+700%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−560%
|
33
+560%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−253%
|
110−120
+253%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−5700%
|
55−60
+5700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−557%
|
180−190
+557%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−963%
|
170−180
+963%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2250%
|
47
+2250%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2433%
|
75−80
+2433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−700%
|
55−60
+700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−360%
|
23
+360%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−253%
|
110−120
+253%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−5700%
|
55−60
+5700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−963%
|
170−180
+963%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2100%
|
44
+2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−700%
|
55−60
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−314%
|
29
+314%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−253%
|
110−120
+253%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2433%
|
75−80
+2433%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−320%
|
21
+320%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−1138%
|
95−100
+1138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−700%
|
95−100
+700%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3100%
|
120−130
+3100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how GT 425M and Arc A310 compete in popular games:
- Arc A310 is 991% faster in 900p
- Arc A310 is 118% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A310 is 5700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A310 performs better in 42 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (30%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.20 | 13.10 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 30 Watt |
GT 425M has 30% lower power consumption.
Arc A310, on the other hand, has a 992% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 567% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 425M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 425M is a notebook graphics card while Arc A310 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.
