Arc A370M vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti with Arc A370M, including specs and performance data.
A370M outperforms 560 Ti by an impressive 66% 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 | 599 | 456 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.66 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.37 | 27.16 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
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 | 384 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 1550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 131.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 112.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
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 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:
| 900p | 63
−58.7%
| 100−110
+58.7%
|
| Full HD | 65
+66.7%
| 39
−66.7%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−66.7%
| 20
+66.7%
|
| 4K | 18−21
−88.9%
| 34
+88.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83 | no data |
| 1440p | 20.75 | no data |
| 4K | 13.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
−211%
|
56
+211%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−78.9%
|
65−70
+78.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−207%
|
46
+207%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 12−14
−254%
|
46
+254%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
−133%
|
42
+133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−63.6%
|
50−55
+63.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−78.9%
|
65−70
+78.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−147%
|
37
+147%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−104%
|
49
+104%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−60%
|
70−75
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−60.6%
|
50−55
+60.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−66.7%
|
45−50
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−39%
|
100−110
+39%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−63.6%
|
50−55
+63.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−78.9%
|
65−70
+78.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−47.1%
|
170−180
+47.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
25
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−17.2%
|
68
+17.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−91.7%
|
46
+91.7%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−60%
|
70−75
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−60.6%
|
50−55
+60.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−3.7%
|
28
+3.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−127%
|
34
+127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−66.7%
|
45−50
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−179%
|
53
+179%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−39%
|
100−110
+39%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−63.6%
|
50−55
+63.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−40%
|
21
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−13.8%
|
66
+13.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−79.2%
|
43
+79.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−60.6%
|
50−55
+60.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−66.7%
|
45−50
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−36.8%
|
26
+36.8%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−39%
|
100−110
+39%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−60%
|
70−75
+60%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−71.4%
|
24−27
+71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−63.2%
|
90−95
+63.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−37.5%
|
11
+37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−186%
|
20
+186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−90.2%
|
75−80
+90.2%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−57.3%
|
110−120
+57.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−127%
|
30−35
+127%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−66.7%
|
30−33
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−70%
|
16−18
+70%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−81.3%
|
55−60
+81.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40
+48.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
This is how GTX 560 Ti and Arc A370M compete in popular games:
- Arc A370M is 59% faster in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 67% faster in 1080p
- Arc A370M is 67% faster in 1440p
- Arc A370M is 89% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A370M is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Arc A370M surpassed GTX 560 Ti in all 62 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.40 | 12.28 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 35 Watt |
Arc A370M has a 66% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 567% more advanced lithography process, and 386% lower power consumption.
The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Arc A370M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
