Arc A770M vs ATI Radeon IGP 340M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1621227
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data18.44
ArchitectureRage 6 (2000−2007)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameRS200DG2-512
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 October 2002 (23 years ago)2022 (4 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 cores24096
Core clock speed183 MHz1650 MHz
Boost clock speed180 MHz2050 MHz
Number of transistors30 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data120 Watt
Texture fill rate0.37524.8
Floating-point processing powerno data16.79 TFLOPS
ROPs2128
TMUs2256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cacheno data6 MB
L2 Cacheno data16 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX7.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4
Arc A770M 11911
+595450%
Samples: 171

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 HDno data81
1440pno data50
4Kno data35

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 0−1 80−85

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 0−1 80−85
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−5600%
110−120
+5600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1557%
110−120
+1557%
Valorant 24−27
−652%
180−190
+652%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 0−1 80−85
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
−2922%
270−280
+2922%
Dota 2 7−8
−1786%
130−140
+1786%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−5600%
110−120
+5600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1557%
110−120
+1557%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3360%
173
+3360%
Valorant 24−27
−652%
180−190
+652%

Full HD
Ultra

Dota 2 7−8
−1786%
130−140
+1786%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−5600%
110−120
+5600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1557%
110−120
+1557%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−920%
51
+920%
Valorant 24−27
−652%
180−190
+652%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−7800%
79
+7800%

1440p
Ultra

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−221%
45
+221%
Valorant 4−5
−4150%
170−180
+4150%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−3300%
30−35
+3300%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 113
+0%
113
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95
+0%
95
+0%
Far Cry 5 106
+0%
106
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry 5 99
+0%
99
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 93
+0%
93
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 67
+0%
67
+0%
Far Cry 5 95
+0%
95
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+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%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+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%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A770M is 7800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A770M performs better in 20 tests (33%)
  • there's a draw in 40 tests (67%)

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 180 nm 6 nm

Arc A770M has a 2900% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon IGP 340M and Arc A770M. We've got no test results to judge.

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.


5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 94 votes

Rate Arc A770M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon IGP 340M or Arc A770M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.