Arc A350M vs Radeon RX 480

Place in performance ranking	233	344
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	11.67	no data
Architecture	Polaris (2016−2019)	Xe HPG (2020−2022)
GPU code name	Polaris 10 Ellesmere	Alchemist
GCN generation	4th Gen	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	29 June 2016 (7 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	no data
Current price	$174 (0.8x MSRP)	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2304	6
Compute units	36	no data
Core clock speed	1120 MHz	1150 MHz
Boost clock speed	1266 MHz	1150 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	35 Watt (25 - 35 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	182.3	55.20
Floating-point performance	5,834 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon RX 480 and Arc A350M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Bus support	n/a	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data
Bridgeless CrossFire	1	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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224 GB/s	96 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	1	no data
HDMI	2.0	no data
DisplayPort support	1.4HDR	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	n/a	no data
CrossFire	1	no data
Enduro	n/a	no data
FRTC	1	no data
FreeSync	+	no data
HD3D	n/a	no data
LiquidVR	1	no data
PowerTune	+	no data
TressFX	1	no data
TrueAudio	n/a	no data
ZeroCore	+	no data
UVD	+	no data
VCE	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
Mantle	n/a	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX 480 22.29
+57.3%

Arc A350M 14.17

Radeon RX 480 outperforms Arc A350M by 57% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RX 480 39552
+27.5%

Arc A350M 31023

Radeon RX 480 outperforms Arc A350M by 27% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RX 480 17919
+67%

Arc A350M 10730

Radeon RX 480 outperforms Arc A350M by 67% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX 480 12186
+70.5%

Arc A350M 7147

Radeon RX 480 outperforms Arc A350M by 71% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX 480 72213
+98.9%

Arc A350M 36315

Radeon RX 480 outperforms Arc A350M by 99% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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	78 +117%	36 −117%
1440p	54 +218%	17 −218%
4K	35 +289%	9 −289%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

35−40
+33.3%

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	58 +93.3%	30−33 −93.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +11.4%	35 −11.4%
Battlefield 5	70−75 +52.1%	45−50 −52.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55−60 +56.8%	35−40 −56.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +89.5%	19 −89.5%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +38.1%	42 −38.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +51.3%	35−40 −51.3%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +100%	50−55 −100%
Hitman 3	65−70 +69.2%	35−40 −69.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Red Dead Redemption 2	69 +188%	24−27 −188%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	66 +120%	30−33 −120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +59.3%	27−30 −59.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	49 +63.3%	30−33 −63.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +95%	20 −95%
Battlefield 5	70−75 +52.1%	45−50 −52.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35 −5.7%	35−40 +5.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +125%	16 −125%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +48.7%	39 −48.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +51.3%	35−40 −51.3%
Forza Horizon 4	93 +86%	50−55 −86%
Hitman 3	65−70 +69.2%	35−40 −69.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Metro Exodus	41 +86.4%	21−24 −86.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	34 +41.7%	24−27 −41.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	57 +90%	30−33 −90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	78 +81.4%	43 −81.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +59.3%	27−30 −59.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +144%	16 −144%
Battlefield 5	70−75 +52.1%	45−50 −52.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +200%	12 −200%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +56.8%	37 −56.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	69 +76.9%	35−40 −76.9%
Forza Horizon 4	77 +54%	50−55 −54%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	44 +132%	19 −132%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +59.3%	27−30 −59.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Hitman 3	35−40 +68.2%	21−24 −68.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +69.2%	12−14 −69.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +71.4%	14−16 −71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +50%	14 −50%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +72.4%	27−30 −72.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +52%	25 −52%
Far Cry New Dawn	50 +92.3%	24−27 −92.3%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +66.7%	27−30 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +78.6%	14−16 −78.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Hitman 3	21−24 +61.5%	12−14 −61.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Metro Exodus	15 +114%	7−8 −114%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18 +125%	8−9 −125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27 +80%	15 −80%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +50%	12 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	26 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +63.2%	18−20 −63.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%

This is how RX 480 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:

RX 480 is 117% faster in 1080p
RX 480 is 218% faster in 1440p
RX 480 is 289% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 480 is 200% faster than the Arc A350M.
in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 6% faster than the RX 480.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 480 is ahead in 67 tests (99%)
Arc A350M is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.29	14.17
Recency	29 June 2016	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	35 Watt