Arc A350M vs GeForce GTX 680

Place in performance ranking	340	343
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.13	no data
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Xe HPG (2020−2022)
GPU code name	GK104	Alchemist
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	no data
Current price	$156 (0.3x MSRP)	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1536	6
CUDA cores	1536	no data
Core clock speed	1006 MHz	1150 MHz
Boost clock speed	1058 MHz	1150 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	35 Watt (25 - 35 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	128.8 billion/sec	55.20
Floating-point performance	3,090.4 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 680 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	10.0" (25.4 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	2048 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256-bit GDDR5	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	6000 MHz	14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 GB/s	96 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	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

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.

GTX 680 14.35
+0.3%

Arc A350M 14.31

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 680 10217

Arc A350M 10730
+5%

Arc A350M outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 5% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 680 29702

Arc A350M 31023
+4.4%

Arc A350M outperforms GeForce GTX 680 by 4% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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%

GTX 680 7587
+6.2%

Arc A350M 7147

GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Arc A350M by 6% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 680 47130
+29.8%

Arc A350M 36315

GeForce GTX 680 outperforms Arc A350M by 30% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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	45 +12.5%	40−45 −12.5%
Full HD	75 +114%	35 −114%
1440p	16−18 −6.3%	17 +6.3%
4K	24 +167%	9 −167%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24

−22.7%

27
+22.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −52.2%	35 +52.2%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +2.2%	45−50 −2.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +15.8%	19 −15.8%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −65%	66 +65%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +15%	20 −15%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +2.2%	45−50 −2.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +37.5%	16 −37.5%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +44.4%	27 −44.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +48.1%	27 −48.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 −2.4%	43 +2.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +43.8%	16 −43.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +83.3%	12 −83.3%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +15.8%	19 −15.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −27.3%	14 +27.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −8.7%	25 +8.7%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −48%	37 +48%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	30−35 +55%	20 −55%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +6.7%	15 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

This is how GTX 680 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:

GTX 680 is 13% faster in 900p
GTX 680 is 114% faster in 1080p
Arc A350M is 6% faster in 1440p
GTX 680 is 167% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680 is 83% faster than the Arc A350M.
in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A350M is 65% faster than the GTX 680.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 680 is ahead in 13 tests (18%)
Arc A350M is ahead in 7 tests (10%)
there's a draw in 52 tests (72%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.35	14.31
Recency	22 March 2012	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2048 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	35 Watt