Arc A380 vs Radeon R5 M330

Place in the ranking	971	334
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	44.01
Power efficiency	5.87	14.74
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Exo	DG2-128
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	320	1024
Compute units	5	no data
Core clock speed	955 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1030 MHz	2050 MHz
Number of transistors	690 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	18 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	20.60	131.2
Floating-point processing power	0.6592 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	20	64
Tensor Cores	no data	128
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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	222 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	186.0 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	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.0	6.6
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
Mantle	+	-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R5 M330 1.54

Arc A380 16.11
+946%

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.

R5 M330 595

Arc A380 6207
+943%

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.

R5 M330 1689

Arc A380 13892
+722%

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.

R5 M330 922

Arc A380 10174
+1003%

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.

R5 M330 4897

Arc A380 60804
+1142%

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

−422%

47
+422%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −917%	61 +917%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1120%	60−65 +1120%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −3250%	65−70 +3250%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1800%	75−80 +1800%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −4000%	160−170 +4000%
Hitman 3	6−7 −933%	60−65 +933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −780%	130−140 +780%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −2400%	75−80 +2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −1188%	100−110 +1188%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −232%	110−120 +232%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1100%	72 +1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1120%	60−65 +1120%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −3250%	65−70 +3250%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1800%	75−80 +1800%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −4000%	160−170 +4000%
Hitman 3	6−7 −933%	60−65 +933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −780%	130−140 +780%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −2400%	75−80 +2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −900%	80 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 −385%	60−65 +385%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −232%	110−120 +232%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −383%	29 +383%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1120%	60−65 +1120%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −3250%	65−70 +3250%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1325%	57 +1325%
Hitman 3	6−7 −933%	60−65 +933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −247%	52 +247%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −663%	61 +663%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −209%	34 +209%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +36%	25 −36%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−2400%

75−80
+2400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −2700%	55−60 +2700%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −3000%	30−35 +3000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	30−35
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1600%	30−35 +1600%
Hitman 3	7−8 −414%	35−40 +414%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −1140%	60−65 +1140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −3800%	35−40 +3800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 −1900%	160−170 +1900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1150%

50−55
+1150%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−2300%

24−27
+2300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1800%	18−20 +1800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	18−20
Far Cry 5	0−1	16−18

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−767%

24−27
+767%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50 +0%	50 +0%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	37 +0%	37 +0%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how R5 M330 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

Arc A380 is 422% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 M330 is 36% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A380 is 4000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R5 M330 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Arc A380 is ahead in 43 tests (68%)
there's a draw in 19 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	16.11
Recency	5 May 2015	14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	18 Watt	75 Watt

R5 M330 has 316.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 946.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M330 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M330 is a notebook card while Arc A380 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.