Radeon Graphics vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with Radeon Graphics, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.67
+641%

Arc A350M outperforms Graphics by a whopping 641% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking357899
Place by popularitynot in top-10010
Power efficiency40.279.06
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameDG2-128Renoir
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)no data

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 cores768448
Core clock speed300 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1150 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology6 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2042.00
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs248
TMUs4828
Ray Tracing Cores6no 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8IGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1750 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.6no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-

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 HD35
+775%
4−5
−775%
1440p17
+750%
2−3
−750%
4K9
+800%
1−2
−800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27
+800%
3−4
−800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+775%
4−5
−775%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+675%
12−14
−675%
Hitman 3 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+711%
9−10
−711%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+700%
6−7
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+660%
10−11
−660%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+675%
12−14
−675%
Hitman 3 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+711%
9−10
−711%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+700%
6−7
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+657%
7−8
−657%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+660%
10−11
−660%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+675%
12−14
−675%
Hitman 3 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+711%
9−10
−711%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+650%
6−7
−650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+660%
10−11
−660%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

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
+650%
2−3
−650%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+711%
9−10
−711%
Hitman 3 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
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
+650%
2−3
−650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+780%
10−11
−780%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%

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
+689%
9−10
−689%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+650%
2−3
−650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
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
+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
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

This is how Arc A350M and Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Arc A350M is 775% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A350M is 750% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A350M is 800% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.67 1.98
Chip lithography 6 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 15 Watt

Arc A350M has a 640.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.


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
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

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 57 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6397 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 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.