GeForce GTS 160M vs Arc A350M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M and GeForce GTS 160M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 35 Watt
14.18
+706%

Arc A350M outperforms GTS 160M by a whopping 706% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking369926
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureXe HPG (2022−2023)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameAlchemistN10E-GS1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)2 March 2009 (15 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 cores664
CUDA coresno data64
Core clock speed1150 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million505 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt (25 - 35 Watt TGP)60 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2019.20
Floating-point processing power1.766 gflops0.192 gflops
Gigaflopsno data288
ROPs2416
TMUs4832

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
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options-2-way
MXM Typeno dataMXM 3.0 Type-B

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed14000 MHzUp to 800 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s51 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 outputsVGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.64.0
OpenGL4.62.1
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 14.18
+706%
GTS 160M 1.76

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
+682%
GTS 160M 3965

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 HD36
+800%
4−5
−800%
1440p17
+750%
2−3
−750%
4K11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27
+575%
4−5
−575%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+775%
4−5
−775%
Battlefield 5 45−50 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+375%
4−5
−375%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1450%
6−7
−1450%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+356%
16−18
−356%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+860%
5−6
−860%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+411%
9−10
−411%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+124%
30−35
−124%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Battlefield 5 45−50 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+300%
4−5
−300%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1450%
6−7
−1450%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+356%
16−18
−356%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+860%
5−6
−860%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+489%
9−10
−489%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+124%
30−35
−124%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1450%
6−7
−1450%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+356%
16−18
−356%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+400%
9−10
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+124%
30−35
−124%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%

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
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+711%
9−10
−711%
Hitman 3 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
+825%
4−5
−825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+878%
9−10
−878%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+788%
8−9
−788%
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
+300%
2−3
−300%
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
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

This is how Arc A350M and GTS 160M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A350M is 800% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A350M is 750% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A350M is 1000% faster in 4K

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 1450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Arc A350M surpassed GTS 160M in all 51 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.18 1.76
Recency 30 March 2022 2 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 60 Watt

Arc A350M has a 705.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 816.7% more advanced lithography process, and 71.4% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 160M 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 GTS 160M
GeForce GTS 160M

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
1 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 160M 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.