Arc A310 vs ATI Radeon HD 3200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3200 and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A310 outperforms ATI HD 3200 by a whopping 6590% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1393 | 377 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.00 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | RS780 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 March 2008 (16 years ago) | 12 October 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 cores | 40 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 494 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 180 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.976 | 64.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03952 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 4 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 124.0 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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 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.
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 | 3
−1033%
| 34
+1033%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−5300%
|
54
+5300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−357%
|
32
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
26
+271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−352%
|
110−120
+352%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−2600%
|
27
+2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−271%
|
26
+271%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−1573%
|
180−190
+1573%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−6567%
|
600−650
+6567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1300%
|
56
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−352%
|
110−120
+352%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−6567%
|
600−650
+6567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
29
+625%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−352%
|
110−120
+352%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−11800%
|
110−120
+11800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3500%
|
70−75
+3500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| 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 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| 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%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 3200 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:
- Arc A310 is 1033% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A310 is 11800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A310 is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.21 | 14.05 |
| Recency | 4 March 2008 | 12 October 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A310 has a 6590.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3200 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
