GeForce Go 7600 GT vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	358	1222
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	40.38	no data
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	DG2-128	G73
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	1 August 2006 (18 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	768	17
Core clock speed	300 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	177 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	55.20	6.000
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	24	8
TMUs	48	12
Ray Tracing Cores	6	no 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 size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 1.0 x16

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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	19.2 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 outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	6.6	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	3.0	N/A
Vulkan	1.3	N/A

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	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
1440p	16	0−1
4K	8	-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Elden Ring	22	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +1000%	6−7 −1000%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +620%	5−6 −620%
Valorant	56 +2700%	2−3 −2700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Dota 2	38 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Elden Ring	42 +4100%	1−2 −4100%
Far Cry 5	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
Fortnite	80−85	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	53 +783%	6−7 −783%
Grand Theft Auto V	26	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1225%	8−9 −1225%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +620%	5−6 −620%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +800%	5−6 −800%
Valorant	55−60 +2800%	2−3 −2800%
World of Tanks	190−200 +1094%	16−18 −1094%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	59 +2850%	2−3 −2850%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +671%	7−8 −671%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +650%	6−7 −650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1225%	8−9 −1225%
Valorant	55−60 +2800%	2−3 −2800%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10	0−1
Elden Ring	17	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +4133%	3−4 −4133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Valorant	35−40 +620%	5−6 −620%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11	0−1
Dota 2	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Elden Ring	3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Dota 2	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Fortnite	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	19	0−1
Valorant	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

This is how Arc A350M and Go 7600 GT compete in popular games:

Arc A350M is 3400% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 10200% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Go 7600 GT is 36% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A350M is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
Go 7600 GT is ahead in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.63	0.55
Recency	30 March 2022	1 August 2006
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	6 nm	90 nm

Arc A350M has a 2560% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7600 GT in performance tests.

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