FirePro M2000 vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	369	1094
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	39.91	2.30
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	DG2-128	Turks
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	1 July 2012 (12 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	768	480
Core clock speed	300 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	716 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	33 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	12.00
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	8
TMUs	48	24
Ray Tracing Cores	6	no data

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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	no data	n/a
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Form factor	no data	chip-down

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	25.6 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	No outputs	No outputs
StereoOutput3D	-	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.6	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	N/A

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.

Arc A350M 14.56
+1212%

FirePro M2000 1.11

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.

Arc A350M 10730
+1176%

FirePro M2000 841

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.

Arc A350M 31023
+684%

FirePro M2000 3956

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:

900p	110−120 +1122%	9 −1122%
Full HD	36 +125%	16 −125%
1440p	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
4K	9	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	30−35 +1033%	3−4 −1033%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +800%	3−4 −800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	30−35 +1033%	3−4 −1033%
Battlefield 5	55−60	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Far Cry 5	42 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Fortnite	75−80 +3800%	2−3 −3800%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +850%	6−7 −850%
Forza Horizon 5	32 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%
Valorant	110−120 +259%	30−35 −259%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	30−35 +1033%	3−4 −1033%
Battlefield 5	55−60	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	180−190 +648%	24−27 −648%
Cyberpunk 2077	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
Dota 2	62 +313%	14−16 −313%
Far Cry 5	39 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Fortnite	75−80 +3800%	2−3 −3800%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +850%	6−7 −850%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	43 +760%	5−6 −760%
Valorant	110−120 +259%	30−35 −259%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
Dota 2	59 +293%	14−16 −293%
Far Cry 5	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +850%	6−7 −850%
Forza Horizon 5	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 +280%	5−6 −280%
Valorant	110−120 +259%	30−35 −259%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

75−80
+3800%

2−3

−3800%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	100−110 +1600%	6−7 −1600%
Grand Theft Auto V	10	0−1
Metro Exodus	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +2000%	6−7 −2000%
Valorant	140−150 +7050%	2−3 −7050%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

30−33
+1400%

2−3

−1400%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Valorant	70−75 +1133%	6−7 −1133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Dota 2	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Far Cry 5	12 +500%	2−3 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

12−14
+550%

2−3

−550%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

This is how Arc A350M and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:

Arc A350M is 1122% faster in 900p
Arc A350M is 125% faster in 1080p
Arc A350M is 1500% faster in 1440p

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

in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 7050% faster.
in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro M2000 is 36% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A350M is ahead in 42 tests (95%)
FirePro M2000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.56	1.11
Recency	30 March 2022	1 July 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	33 Watt

Arc A350M has a 1211.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 32% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation one.