Arc A380 vs GeForce 310M

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated331
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data43.73
Power efficiencyno data14.97
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT218DG2-128
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores161024
Core clock speed606 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors260 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848131.2
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs432
TMUs864
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data222 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s186.0 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 310M 115
Arc A380 6215
+5304%

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.

GeForce 310M 1123
Arc A380 53979
+4707%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 January 2010 14 June 2022
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 75 Watt

GeForce 310M has 435.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 310M and Arc A380. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Arc A380 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 449 votes

Rate GeForce 310M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 811 votes

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.