GeForce Go 7900 GTX vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M and GeForce Go 7900 GTX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A350M outperforms Go 7900 GTX by a whopping 1944% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 342 | 1133 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Xe HPG (2020−2022) | G7x (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | Alchemist | G71M |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 18 April 2006 (18 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $535 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 6 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1150 MHz | 8 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt (25 - 35 Watt TGP) | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 12.00 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Arc A350M and GeForce Go 7900 GTX compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 38.4 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 36
+3500%
| 1−2
−3500%
|
| 1440p | 18 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 8 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 66 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 53 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 25 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| 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 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | no data |
This is how Arc A350M and Go 7900 GTX compete in popular games:
- Arc A350M is 3500% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.31 | 0.70 |
| Recency | 30 March 2022 | 18 April 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7900 GTX in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
