Arc A310 vs FirePro W7100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W7100 with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.
W7100 outperforms Arc A310 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 356 | 370 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.92 | 13.07 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 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 cores | 1792 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 920 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.0 | 64.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.297 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 124.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| HD сomponent video output | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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 | 40−45
+5.3%
| 38
−5.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W7100 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:
- FirePro W7100 is 5% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.39 | 13.59 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 75 Watt |
FirePro W7100 has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Arc A310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 433.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FirePro W7100 and Arc A310.
Be aware that FirePro W7100 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A310 is a desktop 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.
