Arc A350M vs Radeon Pro Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Duo with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.
Pro Duo outperforms A350M by an impressive 52% 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 | 309 | 419 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.94 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.35 | 40.21 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Capsaicin | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 4096 ×2 | 768 |
| Compute units | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 ×2 | 55.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.766 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 24 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 MB |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 277 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 3x 8-pin | 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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s ×2 | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 50−55
+38.9%
| 36
−38.9%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
+41.2%
| 17
−41.2%
|
| 4K | 12−14
+33.3%
| 9
−33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 29.98 | no data |
| 1440p | 62.46 | no data |
| 4K | 124.92 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+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 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+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 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Pro Duo and Arc A350M compete in popular games:
- Pro Duo is 39% faster in 1080p
- Pro Duo is 41% faster in 1440p
- Pro Duo is 33% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.59 | 12.92 |
| Recency | 26 April 2016 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 25 Watt |
Pro Duo has a 51.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Arc A350M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1300% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Duo is a workstation graphics card while Arc A350M 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.
