Arc A550M vs GeForce MX350
Aggregated performance score
Arc A550M outperforms GeForce MX350 by a whopping 227% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 505 | 213 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Xe HPG (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | Alchemist |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 February 2020 (4 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
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 | 640 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | 2005 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 80 Watt (60 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 29.98 | 115.2 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce MX350 and Arc A550M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 192.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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 A550M outperforms GeForce MX350 by 227% based on our aggregated 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 A550M outperforms GeForce MX350 by 228% 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 | 26
−227%
| 85−90
+227%
|
| 1440p | 27
−215%
| 85−90
+215%
|
| 4K | 26
−227%
| 85−90
+227%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 22
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
−223%
|
40−45
+223%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
−108%
|
75−80
+108%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 32
−93.8%
|
60−65
+93.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−130%
|
60−65
+130%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 28
−125%
|
60−65
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
−114%
|
75−80
+114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 22
−223%
|
70−75
+223%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
−219%
|
50−55
+219%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18
−111%
|
35−40
+111%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 23
−126%
|
50−55
+126%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14
−236%
|
45−50
+236%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6
−600%
|
40−45
+600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30
−157%
|
75−80
+157%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20
−210%
|
60−65
+210%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
−170%
|
60−65
+170%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 26
−142%
|
60−65
+142%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
−204%
|
75−80
+204%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18
−294%
|
70−75
+294%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12
−325%
|
50−55
+325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−225%
|
35−40
+225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 15
−247%
|
50−55
+247%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
−96.3%
|
50−55
+96.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14
−221%
|
45−50
+221%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
−488%
|
45−50
+488%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
−367%
|
40−45
+367%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24
−221%
|
75−80
+221%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−195%
|
60−65
+195%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 23
−174%
|
60−65
+174%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
−316%
|
75−80
+316%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−231%
|
50−55
+231%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
−227%
|
35−40
+227%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
−255%
|
35−40
+255%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−138%
|
30−35
+138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−210%
|
30−35
+210%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−317%
|
24−27
+317%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−563%
|
50−55
+563%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−360%
|
45−50
+360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−336%
|
45−50
+336%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−367%
|
27−30
+367%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−156%
|
21−24
+156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−371%
|
30−35
+371%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
This is how GeForce MX350 and Arc A550M compete in popular games:
- Arc A550M is 227% faster in 1080p
- Arc A550M is 215% faster in 1440p
- Arc A550M is 227% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A550M is 1300% faster than the GeForce MX350.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Arc A550M surpassed GeForce MX350 in all 68 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.24 | 23.69 |
| Recency | 20 February 2020 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 80 Watt |
The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX350 in performance tests.
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.
