Arc A770M vs GeForce GT 710
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 710 with Arc A770M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A770M outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 1797% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 957 | 182 |
| Place by popularity | 72 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.92 | 17.78 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | 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 | 192 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 524.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3663 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 16 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 512 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 512.0 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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PureVideo | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 8
−1088%
| 95
+1088%
|
| 1440p | 4
−1250%
| 54
+1250%
|
| 4K | 6
−550%
| 39
+550%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.37 | no data |
| 1440p | 8.75 | no data |
| 4K | 5.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2725%
|
113
+2725%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1100%
|
48
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−3100%
|
256
+3100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5
−1900%
|
100
+1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−814%
|
60−65
+814%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−875%
|
39
+875%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−383%
|
58
+383%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
−5150%
|
100−110
+5150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−273%
|
56
+273%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1725%
|
140−150
+1725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−4120%
|
211
+4120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−856%
|
86
+856%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−1950%
|
82
+1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−953%
|
170−180
+953%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−814%
|
60−65
+814%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1200%
|
100−110
+1200%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−733%
|
270−280
+733%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−725%
|
33
+725%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−467%
|
100−110
+467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−617%
|
85−90
+617%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−3480%
|
179
+3480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−953%
|
170−180
+953%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1650%
|
170−180
+1650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
| World of Tanks | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1000%
|
22
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1500%
|
95−100
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−1171%
|
85−90
+1171%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−181%
|
45
+181%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2325%
|
95−100
+2325%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
11
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−700%
|
55−60
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−1380%
|
74
+1380%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how GT 710 and Arc A770M compete in popular games:
- Arc A770M is 1088% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770M is 1250% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770M is 550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Elden Ring, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A770M is 5150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A770M is ahead in 50 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 30.92 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 120 Watt |
GT 710 has 531.6% lower power consumption.
Arc A770M, on the other hand, has a 1796.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while Arc A770M 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.
