Arc A350M vs Quadro P4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4200 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms Arc A350M by an impressive 75% 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 | 253 | 400 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 17.63 | 40.19 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (3 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 cores | 2304 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1647 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 237.2 | 55.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.589 TFLOPS | 1.766 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 24 |
| TMUs | 144 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 112.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 | - |
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 | 60−65
+66.7%
| 36
−66.7%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
+58.8%
| 17
−58.8%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+55.6%
| 9
−55.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+78.7%
|
75−80
−78.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27
−88.9%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+92.3%
|
24−27
−92.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+62.1%
|
55−60
−62.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+78.7%
|
75−80
−78.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+168%
|
19
−168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+83.3%
|
42
−83.3%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+51.9%
|
75−80
−51.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+67.9%
|
55−60
−67.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+50%
|
50
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+87.8%
|
45−50
−87.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+92.3%
|
24−27
−92.3%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+42.6%
|
110−120
−42.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+62.1%
|
55−60
−62.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+78.7%
|
75−80
−78.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+37.6%
|
180−190
−37.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+219%
|
16
−219%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+95.2%
|
62
−95.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+97.4%
|
39
−97.4%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+51.9%
|
75−80
−51.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+67.9%
|
55−60
−67.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+59.6%
|
47
−59.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+231%
|
26
−231%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+85.7%
|
27−30
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+87.8%
|
45−50
−87.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+92.3%
|
24−27
−92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+62.8%
|
43
−62.8%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+42.6%
|
110−120
−42.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+62.1%
|
55−60
−62.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+325%
|
12
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+105%
|
59
−105%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+108%
|
37
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+67.9%
|
55−60
−67.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+87.8%
|
45−50
−87.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+92.3%
|
24−27
−92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+268%
|
19
−268%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+42.6%
|
110−120
−42.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+51.9%
|
75−80
−51.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+92.3%
|
24−27
−92.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+66.3%
|
100−110
−66.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+320%
|
10
−320%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+47.1%
|
110−120
−47.1%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+44.3%
|
140−150
−44.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+78.4%
|
35−40
−78.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+116%
|
25
−116%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+81.8%
|
30−35
−81.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+93.1%
|
27−30
−93.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+300%
|
11
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+133%
|
15
−133%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+89%
|
70−75
−89%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+89.5%
|
18−20
−89.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+62.5%
|
45−50
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+133%
|
12
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+78.3%
|
21−24
−78.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
This is how Quadro P4200 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 67% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4200 is 59% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P4200 is 56% 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 Quadro P4200 is 325% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed Arc A350M in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.14 | 13.19 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 25 Watt |
Quadro P4200 has a 75.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Arc A350M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Arc A350M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
