GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER vs Arc A550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A550M with GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4070 Ti SUPER outperforms Arc A550M by a whopping 235% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 231 | 8 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 91 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 49.00 |
| Power efficiency | 28.35 | 19.98 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG2-512 | AD103 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2022 (3 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $799 |
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 | 2048 | 8448 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 2340 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2050 MHz | 2610 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,700 million | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 285 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 262.4 | 689.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.397 TFLOPS | 44.1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 128 | 264 |
| Tensor Cores | 256 | 264 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 66 |
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 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 310 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 672.3 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK 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 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | + | + |
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 | 65−70
−248%
| 226
+248%
|
| 1440p | 45−50
−253%
| 159
+253%
|
| 4K | 27−30
−252%
| 95
+252%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.54 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.03 |
| 4K | no data | 8.41 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−311%
|
189
+311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−220%
|
160−170
+220%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−53.9%
|
110−120
+53.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−311%
|
189
+311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−220%
|
160−170
+220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−332%
|
467
+332%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−246%
|
220−230
+246%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
−148%
|
160−170
+148%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
−189%
|
150−160
+189%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−400%
|
450−500
+400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−53.9%
|
110−120
+53.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−272%
|
171
+272%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−220%
|
160−170
+220%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−105%
|
174
+105%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−97.4%
|
150
+97.4%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
−148%
|
300−350
+148%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−309%
|
442
+309%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−246%
|
220−230
+246%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
−105%
|
174
+105%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
−21.5%
|
79
+21.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−37.8%
|
210−220
+37.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
−189%
|
150−160
+189%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
−118%
|
170−180
+118%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−400%
|
450−500
+400%
|
| World of Tanks | 250−260
−9%
|
270−280
+9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−53.9%
|
110−120
+53.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−226%
|
150
+226%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
−220%
|
160−170
+220%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−229%
|
280−290
+229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−100%
|
150−160
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−277%
|
407
+277%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−246%
|
220−230
+246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−37.8%
|
210−220
+37.8%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−400%
|
450−500
+400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−278%
|
155
+278%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−269%
|
155
+269%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−304%
|
90−95
+304%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
−215%
|
500−550
+215%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−74%
|
85−90
+74%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
−122%
|
160−170
+122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−364%
|
306
+364%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−328%
|
170−180
+328%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
−154%
|
140−150
+154%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
−330%
|
159
+330%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−518%
|
400−450
+518%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−555%
|
72
+555%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−323%
|
182
+323%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−323%
|
182
+323%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−342%
|
84
+342%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−179%
|
200−210
+179%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−323%
|
182
+323%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−250%
|
90−95
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−100%
|
22
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−226%
|
140−150
+226%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−218%
|
100−110
+218%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
−210%
|
95−100
+210%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−326%
|
162
+326%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−424%
|
110−120
+424%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−650%
|
240−250
+650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
This is how Arc A550M and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 248% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 253% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 252% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is ahead in 54 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.71 | 79.31 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 285 Watt |
Arc A550M has 375% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, on the other hand, has a 234.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc A550M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 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.
