Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs Radeon R9 M370X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M370X and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms R9 M370X by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 765 | 499 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Xe LPG (2023−2025) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | Meteor Lake iGPU |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 May 2015 (10 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (2 years ago) |
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 | 640 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1500 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
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 size | medium sized | no 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 type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | 12_2 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 34
+36%
| 25
−36%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
13
−15.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−187%
|
40−45
+187%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
11
−36.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−182%
|
30−35
+182%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−150%
|
55−60
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−178%
|
50
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−75.5%
|
90−95
+75.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−187%
|
40−45
+187%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
13
−15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 103
−152%
|
260−270
+152%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−150%
|
20−22
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−143%
|
85−90
+143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−118%
|
24
+118%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−164%
|
55−60
+164%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−117%
|
39
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−36.4%
|
15
+36.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−75.5%
|
90−95
+75.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−187%
|
40−45
+187%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−150%
|
20−22
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−143%
|
85−90
+143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−182%
|
30−35
+182%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−66.7%
|
30
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−75.5%
|
90−95
+75.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−150%
|
55−60
+150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−155%
|
70−75
+155%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−61.3%
|
50−55
+61.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−144%
|
95−100
+144%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−156%
|
21−24
+156%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
Full HD
High
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
This is how R9 M370X and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:
- R9 M370X is 36% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 M370X is 36% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M370X performs better in 3 tests (5%)
- Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) performs better in 35 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (36%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.76 | 9.57 |
| Recency | 19 May 2015 | 14 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 155% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M370X 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.
