Radeon E8950 vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M and Radeon E8950, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 418 | 419 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 40.16 | 10.55 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (3 years ago) | 29 September 2015 (10 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 128.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.766 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 512 KB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 192.0 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
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
+2.9%
| 35−40
−2.9%
|
| 1440p | 17
+6.3%
| 16−18
−6.3%
|
| 4K | 9
+12.5%
| 8−9
−12.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.5%
|
55−60
−5.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+8%
|
50−55
−8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+1.3%
|
75−80
−1.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1.8%
|
55−60
−1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
+11.1%
|
45−50
−11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120
−3.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.5%
|
55−60
−5.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+2.2%
|
180−190
−2.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+3.3%
|
60−65
−3.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+8%
|
50−55
−8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+1.3%
|
75−80
−1.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1.8%
|
55−60
−1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+7.5%
|
40−45
−7.5%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120
−3.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.5%
|
55−60
−5.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+7.3%
|
55−60
−7.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+8%
|
50−55
−8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1.8%
|
55−60
−1.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120
−3.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+1.3%
|
75−80
−1.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+4.2%
|
95−100
−4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+5.5%
|
110−120
−5.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+6.9%
|
130−140
−6.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+2.9%
|
70−75
−2.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
This is how Arc A350M and Radeon E8950 compete in popular games:
- Arc A350M is 3% faster in 1080p
- Arc A350M is 6% faster in 1440p
- Arc A350M is 13% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.02 | 13.00 |
| Recency | 30 March 2022 | 29 September 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 95 Watt |
Arc A350M has a 0.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 280% lower power consumption.
Radeon E8950, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Arc A350M and Radeon E8950.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
