Arc A370M vs NVS 510

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 510 with Arc A370M, including specs and performance data.

NVS 510
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.79

Arc A370M outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 644% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking925385
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency3.5226.18
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1921024
Core clock speed797 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1550 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate12.7599.20
Floating-point processing power0.306 TFLOPS3.174 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1664
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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length160 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s112.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.0-

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 510 1.79
Arc A370M 13.31
+644%

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 510 690
Arc A370M 5115
+641%

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 HD5−6
−660%
38
+660%
1440p2−3
−950%
21
+950%
4K5−6
−700%
40
+700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p89.80no data
1440p224.50no data
4K89.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Elden Ring 35
+0%
35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 42
+0%
42
+0%
Elden Ring 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+0%
62
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+0%
29
+0%
Metro Exodus 13
+0%
13
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
World of Tanks 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 53
+0%
53
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Elden Ring 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+0%
11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
World of Tanks 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Elden Ring 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how NVS 510 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A370M is 660% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A370M is 950% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A370M is 700% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.79 13.31
Recency 23 October 2012 30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm

Arc A370M has a 643.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation card while Arc A370M is a notebook 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 510
NVS 510
Intel Arc A370M
Arc A370M

Other comparisons

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.


2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 166 votes

Rate Arc A370M 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.