Arc A550M vs GeForce GTX 760
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 760 with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.
A550M outperforms GTX 760 by an impressive 97% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 449 | 276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.98 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.19 | 28.97 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (12 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1152 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 99.07 | 262.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.378 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 96 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 8 MB |
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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Minimum recommended system power | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| 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.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 67
−94%
| 130−140
+94%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.72 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−105%
|
130−140
+105%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−80.4%
|
90−95
+80.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−105%
|
130−140
+105%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−87.5%
|
90−95
+87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−66.7%
|
110−120
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−84%
|
90−95
+84%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−103%
|
70−75
+103%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−114%
|
90−95
+114%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−54.3%
|
160−170
+54.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−80.4%
|
90−95
+80.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−105%
|
130−140
+105%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−50.6%
|
250−260
+50.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
−50%
|
120−130
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−87.5%
|
90−95
+87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−66.7%
|
110−120
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−84%
|
90−95
+84%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−103%
|
70−75
+103%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−90.9%
|
80−85
+90.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−113%
|
50−55
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−114%
|
90−95
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−127%
|
65−70
+127%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−54.3%
|
160−170
+54.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−80.4%
|
90−95
+80.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
−50%
|
120−130
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−87.5%
|
90−95
+87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−84%
|
90−95
+84%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−114%
|
90−95
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−127%
|
65−70
+127%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−54.3%
|
160−170
+54.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
−66.7%
|
110−120
+66.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−123%
|
45−50
+123%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−86.4%
|
160−170
+86.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−147%
|
40−45
+147%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−115%
|
170−180
+115%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−57.9%
|
190−200
+57.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−110%
|
65−70
+110%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−130%
|
21−24
+130%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−126%
|
50−55
+126%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−112%
|
50−55
+112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−111%
|
55−60
+111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−125%
|
35−40
+125%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−87%
|
40−45
+87%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−127%
|
30−35
+127%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−118%
|
130−140
+118%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−125%
|
35−40
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−79.1%
|
75−80
+79.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−127%
|
24−27
+127%
|
This is how GTX 760 and Arc A550M compete in popular games:
- Arc A550M is 94% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A550M is 214% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Arc A550M surpassed GTX 760 in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.50 | 22.64 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 60 Watt |
Arc A550M has a 96.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 183.3% lower power consumption.
The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 760 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 760 is a desktop graphics card while Arc A550M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
