Arc Pro A30M vs NVS 5400M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 5400M and Arc Pro A30M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 5400M
2012
2 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
1.62

Arc Pro A30M outperforms NVS 5400M by a whopping 838% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking956348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.2321.19
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGF108DG2-128
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)8 August 2022 (2 years ago)

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 cores961024
Core clock speed660 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors585 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate10.56128.0
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS4.096 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs1664
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXMPCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

NVS 5400M 1.62
Arc Pro A30M 15.20
+838%

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.

NVS 5400M 625
Arc Pro A30M 5862
+838%

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 HD15
−833%
140−150
+833%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−838%
150−160
+838%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−789%
80−85
+789%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−782%
300−310
+782%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−838%
150−160
+838%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−789%
80−85
+789%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−817%
110−120
+817%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−782%
300−310
+782%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−838%
150−160
+838%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−789%
80−85
+789%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−817%
110−120
+817%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−782%
300−310
+782%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hitman 3 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%

This is how NVS 5400M and Arc Pro A30M compete in popular games:

  • Arc Pro A30M is 833% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.62 15.20
Recency 1 June 2012 8 August 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 50 Watt

NVS 5400M has 42.9% lower power consumption.

Arc Pro A30M, on the other hand, has a 838.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5400M in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA NVS 5400M
NVS 5400M
Intel Arc Pro A30M
Arc Pro A30M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 46 votes

Rate NVS 5400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate Arc Pro A30M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.