Arc A310 vs GeForce GT 740

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 740 and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 740
2014, $89
4 GB GDDR5, 64 Watt
3.41

A310 outperforms GT 740 by a whopping 284% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking795433
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.19no data
Power efficiency4.1233.78
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Xe-HPG (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 May 2014 (12 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

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 cores384768
Core clock speed993 MHz1750 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1750 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)64 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate31.7856.00
Floating-point processing power0.7626 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1616
TMUs3232
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6
L1 Cache32 KB1.1 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 GB/s124.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.4
CUDA3.0-
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.

GT 740 3.41
Arc A310 13.10
+284%

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.

GT 740 1419
Samples: 2701
Arc A310 5459
+285%
Samples: 68

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.

GT 740 1950
Arc A310 8464
+334%

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 HD9−10
−311%
37
+311%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.89no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 38
+0%
38
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 42
+0%
42
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Palworld 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Palworld 21
+0%
21
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+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%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+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%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how GT 740 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is 311% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.41 13.10
Recency 29 May 2014 12 October 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 64 Watt 30 Watt

Arc A310 has a 284% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 113% lower power consumption.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 740 in performance tests.

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.


3.2 1487 votes

Rate GeForce GT 740 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 315 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 740 or Arc A310, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.