Arc A310 vs GeForce Go 7700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 7700 with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.
A310 outperforms Go 7700 by a whopping 3643% 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 | 1367 | 432 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 33.78 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | G73 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 August 2006 (20 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 | 17 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 450 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 177 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.400 | 56.00 |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 12 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 1.0 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 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 | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| 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.
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 HD | 0−1 | 37 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−1167%
|
38
+1167%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1767%
|
55−60
+1767%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−1000%
|
33
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−335%
|
110−120
+335%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1214%
|
180−190
+1214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−3400%
|
350−400
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1767%
|
55−60
+1767%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−667%
|
23
+667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−833%
|
56
+833%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−335%
|
110−120
+335%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−3400%
|
350−400
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1767%
|
55−60
+1767%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−383%
|
29
+383%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−335%
|
110−120
+335%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−600%
|
21
+600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−9800%
|
95−100
+9800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2300%
|
95−100
+2300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Palworld | 0−1 | 18−20 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1160%
|
60−65
+1160%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
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
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+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%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+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%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A310 is 9800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A310 performs better in 29 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 13.10 |
| Recency | 1 August 2006 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A310 has a 3643% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7700 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce Go 7700 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.
