Arc A750 vs Radeon R7 350

Place in the ranking	607	179
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	57.38
Power efficiency	7.02	9.75
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	DG2-512
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	6 July 2016 (8 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$289

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	512	3584
Core clock speed	800 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	537.6
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	112
TMUs	32	224
Tensor Cores	no data	448
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	28

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 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 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	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	512.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	+	+

API 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	18−20 −506%	109 +506%
1440p	10−12 −490%	59 +490%
4K	6−7 −500%	36 +500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.65
1440p	no data	4.90
4K	no data	8.03

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	91 +0%	91 +0%
Elden Ring	84 +0%	84 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	88 +0%	88 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	285 +0%	285 +0%
Metro Exodus	116 +0%	116 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	76 +0%	76 +0%
Dota 2	99 +0%	99 +0%
Elden Ring	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Far Cry 5	68 +0%	68 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	239 +0%	239 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	99 +0%	99 +0%
Metro Exodus	94 +0%	94 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	75 +0%	75 +0%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	199 +0%	199 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	41 +0%	41 +0%
Elden Ring	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	41 +0%	41 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	54 +0%	54 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	145 +0%	145 +0%
Metro Exodus	86 +0%	86 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 +0%	57 +0%
Valorant	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20 +0%	20 +0%
Dota 2	45 +0%	45 +0%
Elden Ring	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	43 +0%	43 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45 +0%	45 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +0%	84 +0%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

This is how R7 350 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 506% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 490% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 500% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.60	31.82
Recency	6 July 2016	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	225 Watt

R7 350 has 309.1% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 468.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 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.