Arc A310 vs GeForce 7150M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 7150M with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.
A310 outperforms 7150M by a whopping 32475% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1551 | 425 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.38 |
| Architecture | no data | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | C67 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2006 (20 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (3 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 | 3 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 425 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 64.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | shared Memory | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 124.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | shared Memory | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | -0−1 | 37 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−700%
|
45−50
+700%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−396%
|
110−120
+396%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−1944%
|
180−190
+1944%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−32043%
|
2250−2300
+32043%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−700%
|
45−50
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1300%
|
56
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−396%
|
110−120
+396%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−32043%
|
2250−2300
+32043%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−700%
|
45−50
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
29
+625%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−396%
|
110−120
+396%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 110−120 |
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−78.6%
|
24−27
+78.6%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 70−75 |
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A310 is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A310 performs better in 18 tests (35%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (65%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.04 | 13.03 |
| Recency | 1 February 2006 | 12 October 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A310 has a 32475% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7150M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 7150M is a notebook graphics card while Arc A310 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.
