Arc A770 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.
Arc A770 outperforms Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 by a whopping 245% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 468 | 161 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 52.78 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 10.41 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 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.
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 | 96 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 614.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 19.66 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 128 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 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.
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 | 30−35
−263%
| 109
+263%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−256%
| 64
+256%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−290%
| 39
+290%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.02 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.14 |
| 4K | no data | 8.44 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−185%
|
110−120
+185%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−277%
|
117
+277%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−159%
|
140−150
+159%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+24.2%
|
33
−24.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−288%
|
120−130
+288%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−120%
|
190−200
+120%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−185%
|
110−120
+185%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−95.7%
|
270−280
+95.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−243%
|
230−240
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−252%
|
109
+252%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−159%
|
140−150
+159%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+32.3%
|
31
−32.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−200%
|
105
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−495%
|
113
+495%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−288%
|
120−130
+288%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−684%
|
196
+684%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−120%
|
190−200
+120%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−185%
|
110−120
+185%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−243%
|
230−240
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−235%
|
104
+235%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+78.3%
|
23
−78.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−288%
|
120−130
+288%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−188%
|
72
+188%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−159%
|
140−150
+159%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−210%
|
220−230
+210%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−246%
|
45
+246%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−610%
|
71
+610%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−125%
|
230−240
+125%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−332%
|
82
+332%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+46.7%
|
15
−46.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−326%
|
80−85
+326%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−140%
|
48
+140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−840%
|
47
+840%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−630%
|
73
+630%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−294%
|
190−200
+294%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−355%
|
50−55
+355%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−444%
|
49
+444%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+100%
|
8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−322%
|
35−40
+322%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−333%
|
35−40
+333%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 317
+0%
|
317
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270
+0%
|
270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:
- Arc A770 is 263% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770 is 256% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770 is 290% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 100% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A770 is 840% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
- Arc A770 is ahead in 34 tests (57%)
- there's a draw in 21 test (35%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.56 | 29.53 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 12 October 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A770 has a 245% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Arc A770 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
