Arc A770 vs Quadro P400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P400 with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P400
2017, $120
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
3.99

A770 outperforms P400 by a whopping 702% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking759198
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.0047.22
Power efficiency10.3311.05
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGP107DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 February 2017 (9 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.99 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Arc A770 has 4622% better value for money than Quadro P400.

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 cores2564096
Core clock speed1228 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speed1252 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate20.03614.4
Floating-point processing power0.641 TFLOPS19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs16128
TMUs16256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cache96 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB16 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 x16
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.06 GB/s512.0 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 Connectors3x mini-DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.1-
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.

Quadro P400 3.99
Arc A770 32.01
+702%

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.

Quadro P400 1666
Samples: 1174
Arc A770 13363
+702%
Samples: 1826

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 HD12−14
−88.2%
102
1440p7−8
−88.1%
59
4K4−5
−89.2%
37

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.003.23
+67.7%
1440p17.145.58
+67.5%
4K30.008.89
+70.4%
  • Arc A770 has 68% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A770 has 67% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc A770 has 70% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 179 179
Counter-Strike 2 317 317
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78
Resident Evil 4 Remake 166 166

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 132 132
Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 270 270
Cyberpunk 2077 70 70
Far Cry 5 117 117
Fortnite 140−150 140−150
Forza Horizon 4 33 33
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 99 99
Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 143 143
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 61 61
Far Cry 5 109 109
Fortnite 140−150 140−150
Forza Horizon 4 31 31
Grand Theft Auto V 105 105
Metro Exodus 113 113
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 196 196
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 58 58
Far Cry 5 104 104
Forza Horizon 4 23 23
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72 72
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150 140−150

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90 90
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230 220−230
Grand Theft Auto V 45 45
Metro Exodus 71 71
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 230−240 230−240

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 45 45
Far Cry 5 82 82
Forza Horizon 4 15 15
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60 60

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85 80−85

4K
High

Atomic Heart 24−27 24−27
Counter-Strike 2 28 28
Grand Theft Auto V 48 48
Metro Exodus 47 47
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73 73
Valorant 190−200 190−200

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55 50−55
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 26 26
Far Cry 5 49 49
Forza Horizon 4 8 8
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 40−45

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 40−45

This is how Quadro P400 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is 750% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770 is 743% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770 is 825% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.99 32.01
Recency 7 February 2017 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro P400 has 87% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 702% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 57% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P400 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A770 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 531 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5532 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P400 or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.