Arc A730M vs RTX A2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX A2000 with Arc A730M, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms Arc A730M by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 145 | 211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 91.36 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 34.55 | 23.34 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3328 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 562 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,000 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 124.8 | 393.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.987 TFLOPS | 12.6 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 96 |
| TMUs | 104 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | 104 | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 26 | 24 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 167 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 336.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | - |
| DLSS | + | + |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 96
+29.7%
| 74
−29.7%
|
| 1440p | 43
+7.5%
| 40
−7.5%
|
| 4K | 27
+28.6%
| 21
−28.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.68 | no data |
| 1440p | 10.44 | no data |
| 4K | 16.63 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+39.1%
|
69
−39.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+40%
|
60
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+5.6%
|
71
−5.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+84.6%
|
52
−84.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+19%
|
100−105
−19%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
−1.6%
|
63
+1.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+17.2%
|
64
−17.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+16.1%
|
93
−16.1%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+19.4%
|
120−130
−19.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+26.7%
|
100−110
−26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+60%
|
60
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+31%
|
100−105
−31%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+17.4%
|
170−180
−17.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+140%
|
40
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+19%
|
100−105
−19%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
−3.8%
|
54
+3.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+5.3%
|
260−270
−5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
54
−38.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+14%
|
86
−14%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+19.4%
|
120−130
−19.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+26.7%
|
100−110
−26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+31.5%
|
70−75
−31.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+79.2%
|
72
−79.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+39.5%
|
43
−39.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+31%
|
100−105
−31%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117
+6.4%
|
110
−6.4%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+17.4%
|
170−180
−17.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+19%
|
100−105
−19%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+44.2%
|
52
−44.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+12.3%
|
81
−12.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+26.7%
|
100−110
−26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+104%
|
47
−104%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+31%
|
100−105
−31%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+42.2%
|
45
−42.2%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+98%
|
102
−98%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+19.4%
|
120−130
−19.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+26.3%
|
170−180
−26.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+23.4%
|
45−50
−23.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+12.3%
|
210−220
−12.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+22.5%
|
70−75
−22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+16.1%
|
31
−16.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+3.4%
|
55−60
−3.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+34.3%
|
65−70
−34.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+26.1%
|
45−50
−26.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+9.3%
|
40−45
−9.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+35.5%
|
60−65
−35.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+30%
|
20−22
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+64.7%
|
34
−64.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−5%
|
21
+5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+5.3%
|
35−40
−5.3%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+32.7%
|
150−160
−32.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+30.8%
|
35−40
−30.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
−16.7%
|
35
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+42.9%
|
27−30
−42.9%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+42.9%
|
27−30
−42.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
This is how RTX A2000 and Arc A730M compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 30% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 8% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A2000 is 140% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A730M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is ahead in 55 tests (82%)
- Arc A730M is ahead in 7 tests (10%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.26 | 27.22 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 80 Watt |
RTX A2000 has a 29.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 14.3% lower power consumption.
Arc A730M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A730M in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX A2000 is a workstation card while Arc A730M 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.
