Radeon PRO W7700 vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	358	36
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	70.00
Power efficiency	40.38	21.48
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	DG2-128	Navi 32
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	768	3072
Core clock speed	300 MHz	1900 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	499.2
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	96
TMUs	48	192
Ray Tracing Cores	6	48

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	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 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 type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	576.0 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 Connectors

No outputs

4x DisplayPort 2.1

API 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	2.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.3

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 HD	35 −300%	140−150 +300%
1440p	16 −275%	60−65 +275%
4K	8 −275%	30−35 +275%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	7.14
1440p	no data	16.65
4K	no data	33.30

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 −270%	100−105 +270%
Elden Ring	22 −286%	85−90 +286%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −296%	190−200 +296%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 −289%	35−40 +289%
Forza Horizon 4	66 −294%	260−270 +294%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −300%	160−170 +300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −289%	140−150 +289%
Valorant	56 −293%	220−230 +293%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −296%	190−200 +296%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 −275%	30−33 +275%
Dota 2	38 −295%	150−160 +295%
Elden Ring	42 −281%	160−170 +281%
Far Cry 5	27 −270%	100−105 +270%
Fortnite	80−85 −266%	300−310 +266%
Forza Horizon 4	53 −296%	210−220 +296%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 −285%	100−105 +285%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −300%	160−170 +300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −277%	400−450 +277%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −289%	140−150 +289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −300%	180−190 +300%
Valorant	55−60 −297%	230−240 +297%
World of Tanks	190−200 −293%	750−800 +293%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −296%	190−200 +296%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 −300%	24−27 +300%
Dota 2	59 −290%	230−240 +290%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −289%	210−220 +289%
Forza Horizon 4	45 −300%	180−190 +300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −277%	400−450 +277%
Valorant	55−60 −297%	230−240 +297%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10 −300%	40−45 +300%
Elden Ring	17 −282%	65−70 +282%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −300%	40−45 +300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −294%	500−550 +294%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −285%	50−55 +285%
World of Tanks	100−110 −288%	400−450 +288%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −279%	110−120 +279%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −285%	50−55 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −264%	40−45 +264%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −300%	140−150 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	37 −278%	140−150 +278%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −275%	120−130 +275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −295%	75−80 +295%
Valorant	35−40 −289%	140−150 +289%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Dota 2	11 −264%	40−45 +264%
Elden Ring	3 −300%	12−14 +300%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 −264%	40−45 +264%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −295%	170−180 +295%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 −264%	40−45 +264%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −293%	55−60 +293%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Dota 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −289%	70−75 +289%
Fortnite	16−18 −282%	65−70 +282%
Forza Horizon 4	19 −295%	75−80 +295%
Valorant	16−18 −275%	60−65 +275%

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

PRO W7700 is 300% faster in 1080p
PRO W7700 is 275% faster in 1440p
PRO W7700 is 275% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.63	59.16
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 304.4% 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.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.