Arc A770M vs Radeon R9 285

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Arc A770M, including specs and performance data.

R9 285
2014, $249
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.97

A770M outperforms R9 285 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking368224
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.68no data
Power efficiency6.4718.19
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTongaDG2-512
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date2 September 2014 (11 years ago)2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 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 cores17924096
Core clock speed918 MHz1650 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate102.8524.8
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPS16.79 TFLOPS
ROPs32128
TMUs112256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cache448 KB6 MB
L2 Cache512 KB16 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth176.0 GB/s512.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2Portable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.2.1701.3
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 285 15.97
Arc A770M 28.34
+77.5%

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.

R9 285 6680
Arc A770M 11879
+77.8%
Samples: 163

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.

R9 285 8570
Arc A770M 25563
+198%

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 HD45−50
−80%
81
+80%
1440p27−30
−85.2%
50
+85.2%
4K18−20
−94.4%
35
+94.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.53no data
1440p9.22no data
4K13.83no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 113
+0%
113
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95
+0%
95
+0%
Far Cry 5 106
+0%
106
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 77
+0%
77
+0%
Dota 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 99
+0%
99
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 93
+0%
93
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 173
+0%
173
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 67
+0%
67
+0%
Dota 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 95
+0%
95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 79
+0%
79
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 44
+0%
44
+0%
Far Cry 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 22
+0%
22
+0%
Dota 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 45
+0%
45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how R9 285 and Arc A770M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770M is 80% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770M is 85% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770M is 94% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.97 28.34
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 120 Watt

Arc A770M has a 77% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 58% lower power consumption.

The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 285 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop graphics card while Arc A770M is a notebook one.

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.


4.2 80 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 94 votes

Rate Arc A770M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 285 or Arc A770M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.