Radeon 760M vs Arc A550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A550M and Radeon 760M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A550M outperforms 760M by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 228 | 356 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.18 | 68.10 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG2-512 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2022 (3 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year 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 | 2048 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2050 MHz | 2599 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,700 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 262.4 | 83.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.397 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | 256 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 8 |
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 x16 | 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 | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
API 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 | 6.8 |
| 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. 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.
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 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 | 50−55
+61.3%
| 31
−61.3%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
+57.9%
| 19
−57.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+80%
|
25
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30
−66.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 80−85
+77.8%
|
45−50
−77.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+56.3%
|
45−50
−56.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+137%
|
19
−137%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+317%
|
12
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+110%
|
51
−110%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+67.8%
|
55−60
−67.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+56.3%
|
45−50
−56.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+150%
|
18
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+456%
|
9
−456%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+270%
|
23
−270%
|
| Elden Ring | 80−85
+77.8%
|
45−50
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+162%
|
29
−162%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+49.4%
|
80−85
−49.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+143%
|
44
−143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
+147%
|
34
−147%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+44.9%
|
100−110
−44.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+75.6%
|
45−50
−75.6%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+67.8%
|
55−60
−67.8%
|
| World of Tanks | 250−260
+33.3%
|
190−200
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+56.3%
|
45−50
−56.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+72.4%
|
27−30
−72.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+60.4%
|
50−55
−60.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+189%
|
37
−189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+44.9%
|
100−110
−44.9%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+67.8%
|
55−60
−67.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+87%
|
21−24
−87%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+86.4%
|
21−24
−86.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+33.6%
|
130−140
−33.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
+56.7%
|
100−110
−56.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+97.2%
|
35−40
−97.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+80.6%
|
35−40
−80.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+75%
|
30−35
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+89.5%
|
18−20
−89.5%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+78.4%
|
35−40
−78.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+65.4%
|
24−27
−65.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+65.4%
|
24−27
−65.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+70.5%
|
40−45
−70.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+61.5%
|
24−27
−61.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+65.4%
|
24−27
−65.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+76.5%
|
16−18
−76.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
This is how Arc A550M and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:
- Arc A550M is 61% faster in 1080p
- Arc A550M is 58% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A550M is 456% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Arc A550M surpassed Radeon 760M in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.56 | 14.84 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 15 Watt |
Arc A550M has a 65.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 760M, on the other hand, has a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 760M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
