Arc A310 vs GeForce GTX 295

Place in the ranking	751	366
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	no data
Power efficiency	0.75	13.25
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GT200B	DG2-128
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 January 2009 (15 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$500	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	480	768
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	64.00
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	16
TMUs	80	32
Tensor Cores	no data	96
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	6

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	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None
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	1792 MB	4 GB
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	124.0 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no data
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	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	No outputs
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 295 3.13

Arc A310 14.26
+356%

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 295 1206

Arc A310 5502
+356%

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

8−9

−388%

39
+388%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

62.50

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65 +0%	65 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	54 +0%	54 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29 +0%	29 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
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	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

This is how GTX 295 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

Arc A310 is 388% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.13	14.26
Recency	8 January 2009	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	75 Watt

Arc A310 has a 355.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 816.7% more advanced lithography process, and 285.3% lower power consumption.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

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