Arc A770M vs Quadro FX 770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 770M with Arc A770M, including specs and performance data.
A770M outperforms 770M by a whopping 5506% 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 | 1309 | 229 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 18.44 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | G96 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (18 years ago) | 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $527 | 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 | 32 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.000 | 524.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 16 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 512 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 6 MB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 16 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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 512.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
| 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 | 1−2
−8000%
| 81
+8000%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 50 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 35 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 527.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−4050%
|
80−85
+4050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−11200%
|
113
+11200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−4050%
|
80−85
+4050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9400%
|
95
+9400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1350%
|
110−120
+1350%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−548%
|
180−190
+548%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−4050%
|
80−85
+4050%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1500%
|
270−280
+1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−7600%
|
77
+7600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1100%
|
130−140
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 93 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1350%
|
110−120
+1350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2783%
|
173
+2783%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−548%
|
180−190
+548%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6600%
|
67
+6600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1100%
|
130−140
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1350%
|
110−120
+1350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−750%
|
51
+750%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−548%
|
180−190
+548%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−3850%
|
79
+3850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−10100%
|
200−210
+10100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3400%
|
170−180
+3400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 70−75 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
This is how FX 770M and Arc A770M compete in popular games:
- Arc A770M is 8000% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A770M is 11200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A770M performs better in 30 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.51 | 28.59 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
FX 770M has 243% lower power consumption.
Arc A770M, on the other hand, has a 5506% higher aggregate performance score, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 770M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Arc A770M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
