Arc A380 vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Ti and Arc A380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 980 Ti
2015
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
35.78
+122%

GTX 980 Ti outperforms Arc A380 by a whopping 122% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking133328
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.2743.63
Power efficiency9.9114.86
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGM200DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date2 June 2015 (9 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A380 has 206% better value for money than GTX 980 Ti.

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 cores28161024
Core clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1075 MHz2050 MHz
Number of transistors8,000 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate189.4131.2
Floating-point processing power6.06 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs9632
TMUs17664
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 Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mm222 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)600 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB6 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.5 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.21x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
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 980 Ti 35.78
+122%
Arc A380 16.09

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 980 Ti 13808
+122%
Arc A380 6208

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 980 Ti 23057
+66%
Arc A380 13892

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.

GTX 980 Ti 48631
Arc A380 53979
+11%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 980 Ti 16961
+66.7%
Arc A380 10174

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 Ti 98958
+62.7%
Arc A380 60804

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 Ti 443119
Arc A380 466666
+5.3%

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 HD99
+102%
49
−102%
1440p49
+133%
21−24
−133%
4K53
+152%
21−24
−152%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.563.04
1440p13.247.10
4K12.257.10

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 75−80
+24.6%
61
−24.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+24%
50
−24%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+19.6%
95−100
−19.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+19.7%
60−65
−19.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+17.9%
65−70
−17.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 90−95
+18.4%
75−80
−18.4%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+11%
160−170
−11%
Hitman 3 75−80
+22.6%
60−65
−22.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+15.2%
130−140
−15.2%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+15.8%
100−110
−15.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+14.7%
75−80
−14.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+25.2%
100−110
−25.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+8.8%
110−120
−8.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 75−80
+5.6%
72
−5.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+67.6%
37
−67.6%
Battlefield 5 47
−106%
95−100
+106%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+19.7%
60−65
−19.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+17.9%
65−70
−17.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 36
−111%
75−80
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+11%
160−170
−11%
Hitman 3 75−80
+22.6%
60−65
−22.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+15.2%
130−140
−15.2%
Metro Exodus 49
−106%
100−110
+106%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+14.7%
75−80
−14.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+61.3%
80
−61.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 155
+146%
60−65
−146%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+8.8%
110−120
−8.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 46
+58.6%
29
−58.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+100%
31
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+19.7%
60−65
−19.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+17.9%
65−70
−17.9%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+26.3%
57
−26.3%
Hitman 3 75−80
+22.6%
60−65
−22.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+192%
52
−192%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+111%
61
−111%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 59
+73.5%
34
−73.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+392%
25
−392%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+14.7%
75−80
−14.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+21.4%
55−60
−21.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+22.2%
45−50
−22.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+22.6%
30−35
−22.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+25.8%
30−35
−25.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+23.5%
30−35
−23.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+20.6%
30−35
−20.6%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+19.3%
170−180
−19.3%
Hitman 3 45−50
+25%
35−40
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+24.2%
60−65
−24.2%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+17.5%
55−60
−17.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 85−90
+25%
65−70
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+28.2%
35−40
−28.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 180−190
+13.8%
160−170
−13.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+22%
50−55
−22%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 29
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%
Hitman 3 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 170−180
+14.8%
140−150
−14.8%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+29.4%
30−35
−29.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+29.4%
16−18
−29.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%
Forza Horizon 4 42
+2.4%
40−45
−2.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+26.3%
35−40
−26.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+19.2%
24−27
−19.2%

This is how GTX 980 Ti and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980 Ti is 102% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980 Ti is 133% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980 Ti is 152% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980 Ti is 392% faster.
  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A380 is 111% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 980 Ti is ahead in 61 test (92%)
  • Arc A380 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.78 16.09
Recency 2 June 2015 14 June 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 980 Ti has a 122.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A380 in performance tests.


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 GTX 980 Ti
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
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.


4.3 1497 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 810 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.