Arc A350M vs GeForce GTX 670
Aggregate performance score
Arc A350M outperforms GeForce GTX 670 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 353 | 342 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.41 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Xe HPG (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Alchemist |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
| Current price | $22 (0.1x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1344 | 6 |
| CUDA cores | 1344 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 35 Watt (25 - 35 Watt TGP) |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion/sec | 55.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 670 and Arc A350M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| 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 Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Arc A350M outperforms GeForce GTX 670 by 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Arc A350M outperforms GeForce GTX 670 by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 30−35
−16.7%
| 35
+16.7%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−6.3%
| 17
+6.3%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−12.5%
| 9
+12.5%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.79 | 14.33 |
| Recency | 10 May 2012 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 670 and Arc A350M.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 670 is a desktop card while Arc A350M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
