Radeon 610M vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M and Radeon 610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A350M outperforms 610M by a whopping 407% 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 | 375 | 807 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 71 |
| Power efficiency | 39.67 | 13.03 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 3 January 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 | 768 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.766 TFLOPS | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | 2 |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 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.
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 Time Spy Graphics
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 | 36
+157%
| 14
−157%
|
| 1440p | 16
−169%
| 43
+169%
|
| 4K | 9
+800%
| 1−2
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+46.2%
|
52
−46.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 38
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+100%
|
38
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+200%
|
14
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+338%
|
12−14
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
+1150%
|
4−5
−1150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+285%
|
12−14
−285%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+161%
|
40−45
−161%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+375%
|
16
−375%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+267%
|
50−55
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+130%
|
27−30
−130%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+200%
|
13
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+338%
|
12−14
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+62.5%
|
16
−62.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+211%
|
9
−211%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+285%
|
12−14
−285%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+207%
|
14
−207%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+161%
|
40−45
−161%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+208%
|
12
−208%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+338%
|
12−14
−338%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 15
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+285%
|
12−14
−285%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+138%
|
8
−138%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+161%
|
40−45
−161%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+437%
|
18−20
−437%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+439%
|
21−24
−439%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+133%
|
61
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+469%
|
12−14
−469%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
This is how Arc A350M and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Arc A350M is 157% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 610M is 169% faster in 1440p
- Arc A350M is 800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 1600% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 610M is 45% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A350M is ahead in 57 tests (98%)
- Radeon 610M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.53 | 2.47 |
| Recency | 30 March 2022 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 15 Watt |
Arc A350M has a 407.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 610M 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.
