Radeon HD 7850 vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M with Radeon HD 7850, including specs and performance data.
Arc A350M outperforms HD 7850 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 371 | 458 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.55 |
| Power efficiency | 39.56 | 5.27 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 5 March 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 55.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.766 TFLOPS | 1.761 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
+50%
| 24−27
−50%
|
| 1440p | 16
+60%
| 10−12
−60%
|
| 4K | 9
+50%
| 6−7
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.38 |
| 1440p | no data | 24.90 |
| 4K | no data | 41.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+55.8%
|
120−130
−55.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+45.7%
|
70−75
−45.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+45.9%
|
85−90
−45.9%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+49.5%
|
95−100
−49.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+48%
|
50−55
−48%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
This is how Arc A350M and HD 7850 compete in popular games:
- Arc A350M is 50% faster in 1080p
- Arc A350M is 60% faster in 1440p
- Arc A350M is 50% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.52 | 8.67 |
| Recency | 30 March 2022 | 5 March 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 130 Watt |
Arc A350M has a 44.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.
The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 7850 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
