Arc A370M vs Radeon HD 6290
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6290 with Arc A370M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A370M outperforms HD 6290 by a whopping 4827% 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 | 1391 | 418 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.97 | 25.93 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 December 2011 (13 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 | 80 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | 1550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.200 | 99.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.104 TFLOPS | 3.174 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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 | 6
−550%
| 39
+550%
|
| 1440p | -0−1 | 20 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1667%
|
50−55
+1667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−319%
|
100−110
+319%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1254%
|
170−180
+1254%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2400%
|
25
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−656%
|
68
+656%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1667%
|
50−55
+1667%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 34 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−319%
|
100−110
+319%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−633%
|
66
+633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1667%
|
50−55
+1667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−420%
|
26
+420%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−319%
|
100−110
+319%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−8700%
|
85−90
+8700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3250%
|
65−70
+3250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how HD 6290 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:
- Arc A370M is 550% 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 A370M is 8700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A370M is ahead in 28 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 37 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.26 | 12.81 |
| Recency | 4 December 2011 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 35 Watt |
HD 6290 has 84.2% lower power consumption.
Arc A370M, on the other hand, has a 4826.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6290 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6290 is a desktop card while Arc A370M 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.
