Arc A380 vs GRID M40
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID M40 with Arc A380, including specs and performance data.
Arc A380 outperforms GRID M40 by a whopping 270% 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 | 712 | 371 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 39.98 |
| Power efficiency | 6.14 | 15.17 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 May 2016 (9 years ago) | 14 June 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1033 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.06 | 131.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7933 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 222 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 12−14
−292%
| 47
+292%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.17 |
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 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GRID M40 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:
- Arc A380 is 292% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.03 | 14.93 |
| Recency | 18 May 2016 | 14 June 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 Watt |
GRID M40 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 50% lower power consumption.
Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 270.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID M40 in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID M40 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A380 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.
