Arc A350M vs Radeon Pro W5700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro W5700 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.

Pro W5700
2019, $799
8 GB GDDR6, 205 Watt
34.43
+163%

Pro W5700 outperforms A350M by a whopping 163% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking163416
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation16.27no data
Power efficiency12.9040.18
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameNavi 10DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date19 November 2019 (6 years ago)30 March 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores2304768
Core clock speed1243 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1930 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors10,300 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate277.955.20
Floating-point processing power8.893 TFLOPS1.766 TFLOPS
ROPs6424
TMUs14448
Ray Tracing Coresno data6
L1 Cacheno data1.1 MB
L2 Cache4 MB4 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length305 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 amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s112.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
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 Connectors5x mini-DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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 HD90−95
+150%
36
−150%
1440p40−45
+135%
17
−135%
4K21−24
+133%
9
−133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.88no data
1440p19.98no data
4K38.05no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+0%
27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 38
+0%
38
+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%
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%
Hogwarts Legacy 25
+0%
25
+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%
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%
Hogwarts Legacy 20
+0%
20
+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%
Far Cry 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 15
+0%
15
+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 100−105
+0%
100−105
+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%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10
+0%
10
+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%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3
+0%
3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how Pro W5700 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:

  • Pro W5700 is 150% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W5700 is 135% faster in 1440p
  • Pro W5700 is 133% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.43 13.08
Recency 19 November 2019 30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 25 Watt

Pro W5700 has a 163.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Arc A350M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 720% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700 is a workstation graphics 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.


AMD Radeon Pro W5700
Radeon Pro W5700
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.


4.1 117 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W5700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 76 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro W5700 or Arc A350M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.