RTX A4500 Mobile vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M with RTX A4500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A4500 Mobile outperforms Arc A350M by a whopping 200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 401 | 114 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 40.22 | 21.54 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (3 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (3 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 | 5888 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 276.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.766 TFLOPS | 17.66 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 96 |
| TMUs | 48 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 184 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | 46 |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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
−178%
| 100−110
+178%
|
| 1440p | 17
−194%
| 50−55
+194%
|
| 4K | 9
−167%
| 24−27
+167%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−192%
|
210−220
+192%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
−248%
|
90−95
+248%
|
| God of War | 22
−345%
|
95−100
+345%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−129%
|
130−140
+129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−192%
|
210−220
+192%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
−395%
|
90−95
+395%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−205%
|
120−130
+205%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−123%
|
170−180
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−170%
|
150−160
+170%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
−150%
|
120−130
+150%
|
| God of War | 18
−444%
|
95−100
+444%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−218%
|
150−160
+218%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−101%
|
230−240
+101%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−129%
|
130−140
+129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−192%
|
210−220
+192%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
−49.5%
|
270−280
+49.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
−488%
|
90−95
+488%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
−134%
|
140−150
+134%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−228%
|
120−130
+228%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−123%
|
170−180
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−170%
|
150−160
+170%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
−166%
|
120−130
+166%
|
| God of War | 15
−553%
|
95−100
+553%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
−404%
|
130−140
+404%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−243%
|
95−100
+243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−218%
|
150−160
+218%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
−233%
|
140−150
+233%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−101%
|
230−240
+101%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−129%
|
130−140
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
−683%
|
90−95
+683%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−146%
|
140−150
+146%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−246%
|
120−130
+246%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−170%
|
150−160
+170%
|
| God of War | 11
−791%
|
95−100
+791%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−218%
|
150−160
+218%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−653%
|
140−150
+653%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−101%
|
230−240
+101%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
−123%
|
170−180
+123%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−288%
|
100−110
+288%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−175%
|
270−280
+175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−710%
|
80−85
+710%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−269%
|
55−60
+269%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−47.1%
|
170−180
+47.1%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−87.1%
|
260−270
+87.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−173%
|
100−110
+173%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−292%
|
45−50
+292%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
−288%
|
95−100
+288%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−248%
|
110−120
+248%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−253%
|
50−55
+253%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−305%
|
75−80
+305%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
−266%
|
100−110
+266%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−422%
|
45−50
+422%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
−691%
|
85−90
+691%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−311%
|
35−40
+311%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
−327%
|
60−65
+327%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−233%
|
240−250
+233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−237%
|
60−65
+237%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−422%
|
45−50
+422%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−340%
|
21−24
+340%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−135%
|
110−120
+135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−342%
|
50−55
+342%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−235%
|
75−80
+235%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−323%
|
55−60
+323%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−308%
|
50−55
+308%
|
This is how Arc A350M and RTX A4500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A4500 Mobile is 178% faster in 1080p
- RTX A4500 Mobile is 194% faster in 1440p
- RTX A4500 Mobile is 167% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in God of War, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A4500 Mobile is 791% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX A4500 Mobile surpassed Arc A350M in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.20 | 39.58 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 140 Watt |
Arc A350M has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 460% lower power consumption.
RTX A4500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 199.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The RTX A4500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A4500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
