Arc A310 vs Radeon 620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 620 with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.
A310 outperforms 620 by a whopping 482% 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 | 920 | 432 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.48 | 33.78 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 24 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 May 2019 (7 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 | 384 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1024 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.58 | 56.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7864 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 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 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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:
| Full HD | 6−7
−517%
| 37
+517%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2467%
|
154
+2467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−443%
|
38
+443%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
−2000%
|
42
+2000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1667%
|
106
+1667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−750%
|
51
+750%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−591%
|
75−80
+591%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−367%
|
55−60
+367%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−371%
|
33
+371%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−176%
|
110−120
+176%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−450%
|
33
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−309%
|
180−190
+309%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−442%
|
130−140
+442%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−683%
|
47
+683%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−591%
|
75−80
+591%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−367%
|
55−60
+367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−460%
|
28
+460%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−522%
|
56
+522%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−176%
|
110−120
+176%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−442%
|
130−140
+442%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−633%
|
44
+633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−367%
|
55−60
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−222%
|
29
+222%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−176%
|
110−120
+176%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−591%
|
75−80
+591%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−519%
|
95−100
+519%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−336%
|
95−100
+336%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−611%
|
120−130
+611%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−540%
|
30−35
+540%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−473%
|
60−65
+473%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 620 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:
- Arc A310 is 517% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A310 is 2467% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A310 performs better in 51 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.25 | 13.10 |
| Recency | 13 May 2019 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30 Watt |
Arc A310 has a 482% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 67% lower power consumption.
The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 620 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.
