Arc A730M vs GeForce 305M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 305M and Arc A730M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 305M
2010
Up to 512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.39

Arc A730M outperforms 305M by a whopping 6869% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1258202
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.9423.68
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT218DG2-512
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)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 cores163072
Core clock speed525 MHz1100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors260 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate4.200393.6
Floating-point processing power0.0368 TFLOPS12.6 TFLOPS
Gigaflops55no data
ROPs496
TMUs8192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data24

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB12 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 700 (DDR3), Up to 700 (GDDR3) MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.2 GB/s336.0 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVIPortable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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.

GeForce 305M 0.39
Arc A730M 27.18
+6869%

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.

GeForce 305M 150
Arc A730M 10487
+6891%

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 HD1−2
−7200%
73
+7200%
1440p0−141
4K-0−123

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3450%
71
+3450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3500%
70−75
+3500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3100%
64
+3100%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1175%
51
+1175%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1788%
150−160
+1788%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3075%
120−130
+3075%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−339%
120−130
+339%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3500%
70−75
+3500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2600%
54
+2600%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1075%
47
+1075%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1788%
150−160
+1788%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3625%
149
+3625%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−711%
70−75
+711%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−339%
120−130
+339%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3500%
70−75
+3500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2500%
52
+2500%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1050%
46
+1050%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1000%
88
+1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3000%
124
+3000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−400%
45
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−71.4%
48
+71.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 31
Hitman 3 6−7
−550%
39
+550%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−3200%
66
+3200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2200%
21−24
+2200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 21−24

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1450%
30−35
+1450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 64
+0%
64
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 54
+0%
54
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+0%
37
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 54
+0%
54
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how GeForce 305M and Arc A730M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A730M is 7200% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A730M is 3625% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A730M is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.39 27.18
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 80 Watt

GeForce 305M has 471.4% lower power consumption.

Arc A730M, on the other hand, has a 6869.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A730M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 305M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 305M
GeForce 305M
Intel Arc A730M
Arc A730M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.5 4 votes

Rate GeForce 305M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 108 votes

Rate Arc A730M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.