Arc A750 vs Radeon R7 360

Place in the ranking	595	215
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.87	49.46
Power efficiency	5.81	10.47
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Tobago	DG2-512
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (11 years ago)	12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

Arc A750 has 1178% better value for money than R7 360.

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	768	3584
Core clock speed	no data	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	50.40	537.6
Floating-point processing power	1.613 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	112
TMUs	48	224
Tensor Cores	no data	448
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	28
L1 Cache	192 KB	no data
L2 Cache	256 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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	165 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	6000 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.3	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
Mantle	+	-
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.

R7 360 7.46

Arc A750 30.25
+305%

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.

R7 360 3122
Samples: 2120

Arc A750 12654
+305%

Samples: 1885

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.

R7 360 4110

Arc A750 29667
+622%

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	24−27 −77.6%	107
1440p	14−16	60 +329%
4K	8−9 −77.8%	36

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.54	2.70 +40.5%
1440p	7.79	4.82 +38.1%
4K	13.63	8.03 +41.1%

Arc A750 has 41% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Arc A750 has 38% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Arc A750 has 41% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart	164	164
Counter-Strike 2	336	336
Cyberpunk 2077	75	75
Resident Evil 4 Remake	151	151

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart	123	123
Battlefield 5	110−120	110−120
Counter-Strike 2	270	270
Cyberpunk 2077	66	66
Far Cry 5	111	111
Fortnite	140−150	140−150
Forza Horizon 4	112	112
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130	120−130
Valorant	190−200	190−200

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart	89	89
Battlefield 5	110−120	110−120
Counter-Strike 2	144	144
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	270−280	270−280
Cyberpunk 2077	58	58
Far Cry 5	102	102
Fortnite	140−150	140−150
Forza Horizon 4	106	106
Grand Theft Auto V	99	99
Metro Exodus	105	105
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130	120−130
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	185	185
Valorant	190−200	190−200

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5	110−120	110−120
Cyberpunk 2077	55	55
Far Cry 5	98	98
Forza Horizon 4	90	90
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130	120−130
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	69	69
Valorant	190−200	190−200

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite

140−150

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	89	89
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	210−220	210−220
Grand Theft Auto V	41	41
Metro Exodus	65	65
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180	170−180
Valorant	220−230	220−230

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5	80−85	80−85
Cyberpunk 2077	42	42
Far Cry 5	76	76
Forza Horizon 4	79	79
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57	57

1440p
Epic

Fortnite

75−80

4K
High

Atomic Heart	24−27	24−27
Counter-Strike 2	20	20
Grand Theft Auto V	45	45
Metro Exodus	43	43
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	69	69
Valorant	180−190	180−190

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5	45−50	45−50
Counter-Strike 2	30−35	30−35
Cyberpunk 2077	23	23
Far Cry 5	45	45
Forza Horizon 4	61	61
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40	35−40

4K
Epic

Fortnite

35−40

This is how R7 360 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 346% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 329% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 350% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.46	30.25
Recency	18 June 2015	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt

R7 360 has 56% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 305% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 79% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 360 in performance tests.