Arc A770M vs NVS 3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 3100M with Arc A770M, including specs and performance data.

NVS 3100M
2010
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.53

Arc A770M outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 5560% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1219184
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.6217.31
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT218DG2-512
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)2022 (2 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 cores164096
Core clock speed606 MHz1650 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors260 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848524.8
Floating-point processing power0.04698 TFLOPS16.79 TFLOPS
ROPs4128
TMUs8256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

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
CUDA1.2-

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.

NVS 3100M 0.53
Arc A770M 30.00
+5560%

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.

NVS 3100M 204
Arc A770M 11577
+5575%

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.

NVS 3100M 1121
Arc A770M 77403
+6808%

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 HD1−2
−9600%
97
+9600%
1440p1−2
−5700%
58
+5700%
4K0−138

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−3667%
113
+3667%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2600%
80−85
+2600%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−3067%
95
+3067%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−9800%
95−100
+9800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1600%
85−90
+1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1560%
160−170
+1560%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2350%
140−150
+2350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−333%
130−140
+333%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2600%
80−85
+2600%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2467%
77
+2467%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−9800%
95−100
+9800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1600%
85−90
+1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1560%
160−170
+1560%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−3417%
211
+3417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−730%
80−85
+730%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−333%
130−140
+333%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2600%
80−85
+2600%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2133%
67
+2133%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1600%
85−90
+1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−950%
105
+950%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2883%
179
+2883%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−410%
51
+410%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−333%
130−140
+333%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−6000%
60−65
+6000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 40−45
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4300%
44
+4300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4500%
45−50
+4500%
Hitman 3 6−7
−767%
50−55
+767%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−2633%
82
+2633%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−19300%
190−200
+19300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2200%
65−70
+2200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 24−27

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 74
+0%
74
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

This is how NVS 3100M and Arc A770M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770M is 9600% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770M is 5700% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770M is 19300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A770M is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 30.00
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 120 Watt

NVS 3100M has 757.1% lower power consumption.

Arc A770M, on the other hand, has a 5560.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A770M is a mobile workstation 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 NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M
Intel Arc A770M
Arc A770M

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.


3.1 128 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 89 votes

Rate Arc A770M 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.