Radeon 740M vs Arc A770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A770 with Radeon 740M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A770 outperforms 740M by a whopping 314% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 153 | 507 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 55.96 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.49 | 38.04 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG2-512 | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 4096 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 2100 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2400 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,700 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 614.4 | 40.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 19.66 TFLOPS | 2.56 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 16 |
| Tensor Cores | 512 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 4 |
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 x8 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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. 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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.
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 | 112
+433%
| 21
−433%
|
| 1440p | 64
+357%
| 14−16
−357%
|
| 4K | 41
+356%
| 9−10
−356%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.94 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.14 | no data |
| 4K | 8.02 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 116
+625%
|
16−18
−625%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
| Elden Ring | 88
+283%
|
21−24
−283%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+256%
|
27−30
−256%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 99
+519%
|
16−18
−519%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 304
+547%
|
47
−547%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120
+445%
|
21−24
−445%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+369%
|
27−30
−369%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+256%
|
27−30
−256%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
+577%
|
13
−577%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 105
+228%
|
32
−228%
|
| Elden Ring | 110−120
+409%
|
21−24
−409%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 71
+238%
|
21
−238%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+218%
|
45−50
−218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 258
+597%
|
37
−597%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+262%
|
27−30
−262%
|
| Metro Exodus | 99
+350%
|
21−24
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+186%
|
65−70
−186%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+372%
|
24−27
−372%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+369%
|
27−30
−369%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+124%
|
120−130
−124%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+256%
|
27−30
−256%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 83
+419%
|
16−18
−419%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+160%
|
35−40
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 216
+620%
|
30
−620%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+186%
|
65−70
−186%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+369%
|
27−30
−369%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 45
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+500%
|
10−12
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+327%
|
40−45
−327%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+265%
|
60−65
−265%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+340%
|
14−16
−340%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+541%
|
16−18
−541%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 158
+829%
|
16−18
−829%
|
| Metro Exodus | 91
+550%
|
14−16
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+386%
|
21−24
−386%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+153%
|
18−20
−153%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+350%
|
24−27
−350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+380%
|
10−11
−380%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+475%
|
8−9
−475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 89
+889%
|
9−10
−889%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+550%
|
8−9
−550%
|
This is how Arc A770 and Radeon 740M compete in popular games:
- Arc A770 is 433% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770 is 357% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770 is 356% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770 is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Arc A770 surpassed Radeon 740M in all 61 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.20 | 8.27 |
| Recency | 12 October 2022 | 4 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 15 Watt |
Arc A770 has a 313.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 740M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.
The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 740M in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc A770 is a desktop card while Radeon 740M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
