Arc A770M vs GeForce Go 6600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 6600 and Arc A770M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A770M outperforms Go 6600 by a whopping 17494% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1411 | 188 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.81 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | NV43 A2 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 September 2005 (19 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 12 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 375 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 146 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 110 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | 524.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 16.79 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 128 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | DDR | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 350 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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 | 0−1 | 95 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 55 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 40 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−5550%
|
113
+5550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2300%
|
48
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5020%
|
256
+5020%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−1500%
|
60−65
+1500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4120%
|
211
+4120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3480%
|
170−180
+3480%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−1500%
|
60−65
+1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2525%
|
100−110
+2525%
|
| World of Tanks | 10−12
−2400%
|
270−280
+2400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1550%
|
33
+1550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1129%
|
85−90
+1129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3480%
|
179
+3480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3480%
|
170−180
+3480%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−16567%
|
500−550
+16567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−633%
|
22
+633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2300%
|
95−100
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−2125%
|
85−90
+2125%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 95−100 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−450%
|
11
+450%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−280%
|
55−60
+280%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 45−50 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A770M is 17400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A770M is ahead in 29 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.17 | 29.91 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 110 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A770M has a 17494.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1733.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6600 in performance tests.
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.
