Arc A730M vs Arc A370M
Aggregate performance score
Arc A730M outperforms Arc A370M by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 317 | 134 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Xe HPG (2020−2022) | Xe HPG (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | Alchemist | Alchemist |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1550 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1550 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt (35 - 50 Watt TGP) | 120 Watt (80 - 120 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 99.20 | 211.2 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Arc A370M and Arc A730M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 288.0 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Arc A730M outperforms Arc A370M by 124% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Arc A730M outperforms Arc A370M by 105% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Arc A730M outperforms Arc A370M by 141% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Arc A730M outperforms Arc A370M by 161% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Arc A730M outperforms Arc A370M by 134% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 | 38
−94.7%
| 74
+94.7%
|
| 1440p | 21
−119%
| 46
+119%
|
| 4K | 35
+45.8%
| 24
−45.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
−54.3%
|
71
+54.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 33
−93.9%
|
64
+93.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−119%
|
110−120
+119%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−129%
|
75−80
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
−73%
|
64
+73%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−78.6%
|
75−80
+78.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
−105%
|
90−95
+105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−104%
|
100−110
+104%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55
−124%
|
123
+124%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−200%
|
153
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−95.8%
|
90−95
+95.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−100%
|
85−90
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 74
−141%
|
178
+141%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45
−88.9%
|
85
+88.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20
−170%
|
54
+170%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−119%
|
110−120
+119%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−129%
|
75−80
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
−116%
|
54
+116%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
−62.5%
|
39
+62.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
+7.3%
|
41
−7.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−104%
|
100−110
+104%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24
−54.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−149%
|
127
+149%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−68.8%
|
81
+68.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−100%
|
85−90
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 47
−123%
|
105
+123%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
−108%
|
110
+108%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 34
−121%
|
75
+121%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18
−167%
|
48
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−129%
|
75−80
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21
−148%
|
52
+148%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−78.6%
|
75−80
+78.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−104%
|
100−110
+104%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−72.5%
|
88
+72.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−54.2%
|
74
+54.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−73.1%
|
45
+73.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 15
−220%
|
48
+220%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−100%
|
85−90
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−116%
|
65−70
+116%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
−170%
|
80−85
+170%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−104%
|
45−50
+104%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−133%
|
27−30
+133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
−138%
|
35−40
+138%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
−185%
|
37
+185%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−174%
|
50−55
+174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−288%
|
31
+288%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
−117%
|
60−65
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−143%
|
70−75
+143%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−106%
|
66
+106%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−139%
|
65−70
+139%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 37
−127%
|
80−85
+127%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−188%
|
45−50
+188%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 11
−218%
|
35
+218%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+100%
|
11
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
−164%
|
27−30
+164%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−159%
|
40−45
+159%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−180%
|
28
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−173%
|
40−45
+173%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−153%
|
40−45
+153%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
−191%
|
30−35
+191%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−133%
|
45−50
+133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−135%
|
40
+135%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−160%
|
39
+160%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
This is how Arc A370M and Arc A730M compete in popular games:
- Arc A730M is 95% faster in 1080p
- Arc A730M is 119% faster in 1440p
- Arc A370M is 46% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A370M is 100% faster than the Arc A730M.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A730M is 288% faster than the Arc A370M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A370M is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
- Arc A730M is ahead in 69 tests (96%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.78 | 35.28 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 120 Watt |
The Arc A730M is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A370M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
