Arc A370M vs GeForce GTX 285M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M and Arc A370M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A370M outperforms GTX 285M by a whopping 707% 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 | 395 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.51 | 26.07 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | G92 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2010 (15 years ago) | 30 March 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 | 128 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 99.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS | 3.174 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 576 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1020 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 112.0 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 | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort | No outputs |
| 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.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK 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.
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:
| 900p | 21
−662%
| 160−170
+662%
|
| Full HD | 30
−30%
| 39
+30%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−900%
| 20
+900%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−750%
| 34
+750%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−1300%
|
56
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−175%
|
21−24
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1050%
|
46
+1050%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−950%
|
42
+950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1700%
|
50−55
+1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−175%
|
21−24
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 49 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1340%
|
70−75
+1340%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−203%
|
100−110
+203%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−500%
|
24
+500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1700%
|
50−55
+1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−175%
|
21−24
+175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−433%
|
170−180
+433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−525%
|
25
+525%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−258%
|
68
+258%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 46 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1340%
|
70−75
+1340%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1350%
|
29
+1350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1600%
|
34
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−783%
|
53
+783%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−203%
|
100−110
+203%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1700%
|
50−55
+1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−175%
|
21−24
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−247%
|
66
+247%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 43 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−333%
|
26
+333%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−203%
|
100−110
+203%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1340%
|
70−75
+1340%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−840%
|
90−95
+840%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−860%
|
95−100
+860%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−1378%
|
130−140
+1378%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
29
+1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−738%
|
65−70
+738%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how GTX 285M and Arc A370M compete in popular games:
- Arc A370M is 662% faster in 900p
- Arc A370M is 30% faster in 1080p
- Arc A370M is 900% faster in 1440p
- Arc A370M is 750% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A370M is 3200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A370M is ahead in 51 test (82%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 13.31 |
| Recency | 1 February 2010 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
Arc A370M has a 706.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
