Arc A770 vs GeForce GTX 280

Place in the ranking	738	155
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	55.34
Power efficiency	0.97	10.36
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GT200	DG2-512
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A770 has 46017% better value for money than GTX 280.

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	240	4096
Core clock speed	602 MHz	2100 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	225 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	48.16	614.4
Floating-point processing power	0.6221 TFLOPS	19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	128
TMUs	80	256
Tensor Cores	no data	512
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	32

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1107 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	141.7 GB/s	512.0 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	HDTVDual Link DVI	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.6
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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.

GTX 280 3.34

Arc A770 33.94
+916%

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.

GTX 280 1285

Arc A770 13071
+917%

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	10−12 −1060%	116 +1060%
1440p	6−7 −983%	65 +983%
4K	4−5 −925%	41 +925%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	64.90	2.84
1440p	108.17	5.06
4K	162.25	8.02

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65 +0%	65 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	92 +0%	92 +0%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	31 +0%	31 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79 +0%	79 +0%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	258 +0%	258 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45 +0%	45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	72 +0%	72 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +0%	23 +0%
Hitman 3	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	121 +0%	121 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	216 +0%	216 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	72 +0%	72 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	74 +0%	74 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70

+0%

65−70

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40 +0%	40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60 +0%	60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +0%	100 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	158 +0%	158 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +0%	60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	83 +0%	83 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	73 +0%	73 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +0%	30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8 +0%	8 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	89 +0%	89 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	37 +0%	37 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

+0%

21−24

+0%

This is how GTX 280 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

Arc A770 is 1060% faster in 1080p
Arc A770 is 983% faster in 1440p
Arc A770 is 925% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.34	33.94
Recency	16 June 2008	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	225 Watt

Arc A770 has a 916.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 4.9% lower power consumption.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.

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