Arc A770 vs Radeon R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 and Arc A770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A770 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 519% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 648 | 185 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 51.29 |
Power efficiency | 7.08 | 10.71 |
Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
GPU code name | Cape Verde | DG2-512 |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 6 July 2016 (9 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 512 | 4096 |
Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 2100 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 | 614.4 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 16 | 128 |
TMUs | 32 | 256 |
Tensor Cores | no data | 512 |
Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 | 16 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 | - | - |
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 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 |
DLSS | - | + |
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
−569%
| 107
+569%
|
1440p | 10−12
−530%
| 63
+530%
|
4K | 6−7
−550%
| 39
+550%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | no data | 3.07 |
1440p | no data | 5.22 |
4K | no data | 8.44 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 317
+0%
|
317
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
God of War | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 270
+0%
|
270
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
God of War | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
God of War | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
God of War | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
God of War | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
God of War | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how R7 350 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:
- Arc A770 is 569% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770 is 530% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770 is 550% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 5.11 | 31.64 |
Recency | 6 July 2016 | 12 October 2022 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
R7 350 has 309.1% lower power consumption.
Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 519.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.