Radeon PRO W7700 vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.47

PRO W7700 outperforms Arc A350M by a whopping 312% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking36637
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data73.44
Power efficiency39.9421.65
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameDG2-128Navi 32
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores7683072
Core clock speed300 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate55.20499.2
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs2496
TMUs48192
Ray Tracing Cores648

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 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s576.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort 2.1

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.66.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3

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 HD36
−289%
140−150
+289%
1440p16
−306%
65−70
+306%
4K9
−289%
35−40
+289%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data7.14
1440pno data15.37
4Kno data28.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−300%
140−150
+300%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−300%
100−105
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
−307%
110−120
+307%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−300%
140−150
+300%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−307%
240−250
+307%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−300%
100−105
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
−295%
75−80
+295%
Far Cry 5 42
−305%
170−180
+305%
Fortnite 75−80
−285%
300−310
+285%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−304%
230−240
+304%
Forza Horizon 5 32
−306%
130−140
+306%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−300%
200−210
+300%
Valorant 110−120
−291%
450−500
+291%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−300%
140−150
+300%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−307%
240−250
+307%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−300%
100−105
+300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
−301%
750−800
+301%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
−306%
65−70
+306%
Dota 2 62
−303%
250−260
+303%
Far Cry 5 39
−310%
160−170
+310%
Fortnite 75−80
−285%
300−310
+285%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−304%
230−240
+304%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−305%
150−160
+305%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
−285%
100−105
+285%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−293%
110−120
+293%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−300%
200−210
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
−295%
170−180
+295%
Valorant 110−120
−291%
450−500
+291%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−307%
240−250
+307%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−300%
100−105
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
−275%
45−50
+275%
Dota 2 59
−307%
240−250
+307%
Far Cry 5 37
−305%
150−160
+305%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−304%
230−240
+304%
Forza Horizon 5 21
−305%
85−90
+305%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
−300%
200−210
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−295%
75−80
+295%
Valorant 110−120
−291%
450−500
+291%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
−285%
300−310
+285%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
−292%
400−450
+292%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−300%
40−45
+300%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−312%
70−75
+312%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
−310%
500−550
+310%
Valorant 140−150
−285%
550−600
+285%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−295%
150−160
+295%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−306%
65−70
+306%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−275%
45−50
+275%
Far Cry 5 25
−300%
100−105
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−294%
130−140
+294%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
−300%
100−105
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−305%
85−90
+305%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
−300%
120−130
+300%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
−309%
45−50
+309%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
−309%
45−50
+309%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−300%
40−45
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
−300%
60−65
+300%
Valorant 70−75
−305%
300−310
+305%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−295%
75−80
+295%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Dota 2 45−50
−308%
200−210
+308%
Far Cry 5 12
−275%
45−50
+275%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−296%
95−100
+296%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
−309%
45−50
+309%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−285%
50−55
+285%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−285%
50−55
+285%

This is how Arc A350M and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 289% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7700 is 306% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7700 is 289% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.47 59.61
Recency 30 March 2022 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 190 Watt

Arc A350M has 660% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 312% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

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 PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Other comparisons

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
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc A350M or Radeon PRO W7700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.