Radeon R9 M270X vs Arc A350M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M and Radeon R9 M270X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
12.97
+355%

A350M outperforms R9 M270X by a whopping 355% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking418819
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency40.20no data
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameDG2-128Venus
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date30 March 2022 (3 years ago)21 March 2014 (11 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 cores768640
Compute unitsno data10
Core clock speed300 MHz725 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz775 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Wattno data
Texture fill rate55.2031.00
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS0.992 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs4840
Ray Tracing Cores6no data
L1 Cache1.1 MB160 KB
L2 Cache4 MB256 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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s72 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)DirectX® 11
Shader Model6.65.1
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL3.0Not Listed
Vulkan1.3-
Mantle-+

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
+414%
7−8
−414%
1440p17
+467%
3−4
−467%
4K9
+800%
1−2
−800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+363%
16−18
−363%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+440%
5−6
−440%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+383%
12−14
−383%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+363%
16−18
−363%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+375%
4−5
−375%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+440%
10−11
−440%
Far Cry 5 42
+367%
9−10
−367%
Fortnite 75−80
+381%
16−18
−381%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+367%
12−14
−367%
Forza Horizon 5 50
+400%
10−11
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+390%
10−11
−390%
Valorant 110−120
+375%
24−27
−375%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+383%
12−14
−383%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+363%
16−18
−363%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+360%
40−45
−360%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+433%
3−4
−433%
Dota 2 62
+417%
12−14
−417%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+440%
10−11
−440%
Far Cry 5 39
+388%
8−9
−388%
Fortnite 75−80
+381%
16−18
−381%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+367%
12−14
−367%
Forza Horizon 5 47
+370%
10−11
−370%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+420%
5−6
−420%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+440%
5−6
−440%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+390%
10−11
−390%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
+378%
9−10
−378%
Valorant 110−120
+375%
24−27
−375%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+383%
12−14
−383%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+500%
2−3
−500%
Dota 2 59
+392%
12−14
−392%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+440%
10−11
−440%
Far Cry 5 37
+363%
8−9
−363%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+367%
12−14
−367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+390%
10−11
−390%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+375%
4−5
−375%
Valorant 110−120
+375%
24−27
−375%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+381%
16−18
−381%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+371%
21−24
−371%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+400%
2−3
−400%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+379%
24−27
−379%
Valorant 130−140
+363%
30−33
−363%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+363%
8−9
−363%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Escape from Tarkov 27−30
+440%
5−6
−440%
Far Cry 5 25
+400%
5−6
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+357%
7−8
−357%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+450%
2−3
−450%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+400%
3−4
−400%
Valorant 70−75
+414%
14−16
−414%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Dota 2 45−50
+380%
10−11
−380%
Escape from Tarkov 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Far Cry 5 12
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

This is how Arc A350M and R9 M270X compete in popular games:

  • Arc A350M is 414% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A350M is 467% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A350M is 800% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.97 2.85
Recency 30 March 2022 21 March 2014
Chip lithography 6 nm 28 nm

Arc A350M has a 355.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M270X in performance tests.

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 R9 M270X
Radeon R9 M270X

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.


3.3 76 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 5 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc A350M or Radeon R9 M270X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.