Arc A380 vs Radeon R7 350

Place in the ranking	613	340
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	44.00
Power efficiency	7.03	14.92
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	DG2-128
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	6 July 2016 (8 years ago)	14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	512	1024
Core clock speed	800 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2050 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	131.2
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	168 mm	222 mm
Width	1-slot	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	186.0 GB/s

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, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	+	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3

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 HD

16−18

−194%

47
+194%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	37 +0%	37 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	94 +0%	94 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	63 +0%	63 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	31 +0%	31 +0%
Dota 2	33 +0%	33 +0%
Far Cry 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +0%	80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	33 +0%	33 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	61 +0%	61 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how R7 350 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

Arc A380 is 194% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.41	15.66
Recency	6 July 2016	14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt

R7 350 has 36.4% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 189.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

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