Arc A310 vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.
Arc A310 outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 378 | 366 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | no data | 13.09 |
Architecture | no data | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
GPU code name | no data | DG2-128 |
Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 768 |
Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 2000 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
Number of transistors | no data | 7,200 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 6 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 64.00 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.072 TFLOPS |
ROPs | no data | 16 |
TMUs | no data | 32 |
Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
Width | no data | 1-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 1937 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 124.0 GB/s |
Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | no data | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 | 27
−37%
| 37
+37%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
32
+33.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 40−45
−4.9%
|
40−45
+4.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−2.2%
|
45−50
+2.2%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
26
+8.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−45.5%
|
80
+45.5%
|
Metro Exodus | 35−40
−5.4%
|
35−40
+5.4%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
Valorant | 50−55
−5.6%
|
55−60
+5.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−2.2%
|
45−50
+2.2%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
26
+8.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 45−50
+75%
|
28
−75%
|
Elden Ring | 40−45
−4.9%
|
40−45
+4.9%
|
Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−1.9%
|
50−55
+1.9%
|
Fortnite | 75−80
−3.9%
|
80−85
+3.9%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65
+18.2%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+75%
|
28
−75%
|
Metro Exodus | 35−40
−5.4%
|
35−40
+5.4%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−3%
|
100−110
+3%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
Valorant | 50−55
−5.6%
|
55−60
+5.6%
|
World of Tanks | 180−190
−2.7%
|
180−190
+2.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−2.2%
|
45−50
+2.2%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−1.9%
|
50−55
+1.9%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1.9%
|
54
−1.9%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−3%
|
100−110
+3%
|
Valorant | 50−55
−5.6%
|
55−60
+5.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
Dota 2 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
Elden Ring | 21−24
−4.8%
|
21−24
+4.8%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−10.1%
|
120−130
+10.1%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
World of Tanks | 95−100
−3.1%
|
100−105
+3.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−6.3%
|
30−35
+6.3%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Metro Exodus | 27−30
−6.9%
|
30−35
+6.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Valorant | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
4K
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
Elden Ring | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−5%
|
40−45
+5%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Fortnite | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and Arc A310 compete in popular games:
- Arc A310 is 37% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 75% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A310 is 45% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- Arc A310 is ahead in 44 tests (80%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 13.71 | 14.23 |
Recency | 10 November 2020 | 12 October 2022 |
Chip lithography | 5 nm | 6 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 20% more advanced lithography process.
Arc A310, on the other hand, has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between M1 8-Core GPU and Arc A310.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while Arc A310 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.