Arc A380 vs GeForce GTX 285

Place in the ranking	693	328
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	43.64
Power efficiency	1.33	14.86
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GT200B	DG2-128
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)	14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A380 has 16063% better value for money than GTX 285.

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	240	1024
Core clock speed	648 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2050 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	131.2
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	64
Tensor Cores	no data	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	267 mm	222 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	159.0 GB/s	186.0 GB/s

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	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.6
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	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.

GTX 285 3.92

Arc A380 16.09
+310%

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.

GTX 285 1513

Arc A380 6208
+310%

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

10−12

−390%

49
+390%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

35.90

3.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	61 +0%	61 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50 +0%	50 +0%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Hitman 3	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	72 +0%	72 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	37 +0%	37 +0%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Hitman 3	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80 +0%	80 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	29 +0%	29 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +0%	57 +0%
Hitman 3	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	52 +0%	52 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	61 +0%	61 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 +0%	34 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	25 +0%	25 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80

+0%

75−80

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55

+0%

50−55

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

This is how GTX 285 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

Arc A380 is 390% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.92	16.09
Recency	23 December 2008	14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	75 Watt

Arc A380 has a 310.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 816.7% more advanced lithography process, and 172% lower power consumption.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

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