Arc A350M vs FirePro W8100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W8100 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.
W8100 outperforms Arc A350M by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 296 | 359 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.97 | 40.28 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (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 | 2560 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 824 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 220 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 131.8 | 55.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.219 TFLOPS | 1.766 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 24 |
| TMUs | 160 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | 512 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 112.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| HD сomponent video output | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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 | 45−50
+28.6%
| 35
−28.6%
|
| 1440p | 18−21
+12.5%
| 16
−12.5%
|
| 4K | 10−12
+25%
| 8
−25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W8100 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:
- FirePro W8100 is 29% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W8100 is 13% faster in 1440p
- FirePro W8100 is 25% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.07 | 14.63 |
| Recency | 23 June 2014 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 220 Watt | 25 Watt |
FirePro W8100 has a 30.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Arc A350M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 780% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W8100 is a workstation card while Arc A350M is a notebook one.
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.
