GeForce GT 525M vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M and GeForce GT 525M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.69
+1134%

Arc A350M outperforms GT 525M by a whopping 1134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3551055
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency40.623.58
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameDG2-128GF108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)5 January 2011 (13 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 cores76896
Core clock speed300 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate55.207.600
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS0.1824 TFLOPS
ROPs244
TMUs4816
Ray Tracing Cores6no data

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 API
Shader Model6.65.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Arc A350M 14.69
+1134%
GT 525M 1.19

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Arc A350M 10730
+1243%
GT 525M 799

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Arc A350M 31023
+708%
GT 525M 3840

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.

Arc A350M 7147
+1034%
GT 525M 630

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:

900p160−170
+1131%
13
−1131%
Full HD37
+94.7%
19
−94.7%
1440p18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
4K80−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27
+800%
3−4
−800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+533%
3−4
−533%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+9200%
1−2
−9200%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+421%
14−16
−421%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1500%
3−4
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+475%
8−9
−475%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+138%
30−35
−138%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+433%
3−4
−433%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+9200%
1−2
−9200%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+421%
14−16
−421%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1500%
3−4
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+563%
8−9
−563%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+209%
10−12
−209%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+138%
30−35
−138%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+300%
3−4
−300%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+9200%
1−2
−9200%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+421%
14−16
−421%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+463%
8−9
−463%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+72.7%
10−12
−72.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+138%
30−35
−138%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+1360%
5−6
−1360%
Hitman 3 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+1660%
5−6
−1660%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

This is how Arc A350M and GT 525M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A350M is 1131% faster in 900p
  • Arc A350M is 95% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A350M is 1700% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A350M is 9200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Arc A350M surpassed GT 525M in all 47 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.69 1.19
Recency 30 March 2022 5 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 23 Watt

Arc A350M has a 1134.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

GT 525M, on the other hand, has 8.7% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 525M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M
GeForce GT 525M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 56 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 345 votes

Rate GeForce GT 525M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.