Arc A350M vs Quadro RTX 5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.

RTX 5000
2018
16 GB GDDR6, 230 Watt
41.00
+182%

RTX 5000 outperforms Arc A350M by a whopping 182% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking100366
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.09no data
Power efficiency12.2539.93
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTU104DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3072768
Core clock speed1620 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1815 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate348.555.20
Floating-point processing power11.15 TFLOPS1.766 TFLOPS
ROPs6424
TMUs19248
Tensor Cores384no data
Ray Tracing Cores486

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s112.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-
DLSS+-

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 HD100−110
+178%
36
−178%
1440p45−50
+181%
16
−181%
4K24−27
+167%
9
−167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p22.99no data
1440p51.09no data
4K95.79no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+0%
27
+0%
Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 42
+0%
42
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 32
+0%
32
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%
Dota 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Far Cry 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+0%
26
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 43
+0%
43
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+0%
19
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+0%
10
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+0%
11
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how RTX 5000 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5000 is 178% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 5000 is 181% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 5000 is 167% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 41.00 14.52
Recency 13 August 2018 30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 25 Watt

RTX 5000 has a 182.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Arc A350M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 820% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation card while Arc A350M is a notebook one.

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 Quadro RTX 5000
Quadro RTX 5000
Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M

Other comparisons

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.


3.6
220 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8
57 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 5000 or Arc A350M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.