Arc A380 vs GeForce GT 730A
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 730A with Arc A380, including specs and performance data.
Arc A380 outperforms GT 730A by a whopping 740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 907 | 334 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 43.73 |
| Power efficiency | 4.03 | 14.88 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 July 2014 (10 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.
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 | 719 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.01 | 131.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5522 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 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 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 222 mm |
| Width | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1001 MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API 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 | 3.5 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 5−6
−840%
| 47
+840%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.17 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how GT 730A and Arc A380 compete in popular games:
- Arc A380 is 840% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.93 | 16.21 |
| Recency | 1 July 2014 | 14 June 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 730A has 127.3% lower power consumption.
Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 739.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 730A in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 730A 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
