Arc A770 vs Quadro 410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID K1 GRID K100 GRID K140Q GRID K160Q GRID K340 NVS 510 NVS 1000 Quadro 410 Quadro K420 Quadro K600 Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000D
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Arc 7 A770M Arc 7 A780 Arc A580 Arc A750 Arc A770 Arc A780

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 410 with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 410
2012
512 MB DDR3, 38 Watt
1.14

Arc A770 outperforms 410 by a whopping 2906% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro 410 Quadro 410
Arc A770 Arc A770

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1085156
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1456.25
Power efficiency2.0610.44
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Arc A770 has 40079% better value for money than Quadro 410.

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 cores1924096
Core clock speed706 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)38 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate11.30614.4
Floating-point processing power0.2711 TFLOPS19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs16256
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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length176 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 amount512 MB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.26 GB/s512.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK 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-
DLSS-+

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.

Quadro 410 1.14
Arc A770 34.27
+2906%

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.

Quadro 410 439
Arc A770 13172
+2900%

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 HD3−4
−3600%
111
+3600%
1440p2−3
−3000%
62
+3000%
4K1−2
−3900%
40
+3900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p49.67
−1576%
2.96
+1576%
1440p74.50
−1304%
5.31
+1304%
4K149.00
−1712%
8.23
+1712%
  • Arc A770 has 1576% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A770 has 1304% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc A770 has 1712% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 179
+0%
179
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 116
+0%
116
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 132
+0%
132
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 99
+0%
99
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70
+0%
70
+0%
Far Cry 5 117
+0%
117
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 139
+0%
139
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 99
+0%
99
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 109
+0%
109
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 127
+0%
127
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+0%
105
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 196
+0%
196
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 83
+0%
83
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 104
+0%
104
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
+0%
72
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Far Cry 5 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 15
+0%
15
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60
+0%
60
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 48
+0%
48
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how Quadro 410 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is 3600% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770 is 3000% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770 is 3900% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.14 34.27
Recency 7 August 2012 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 38 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro 410 has 492.1% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 2906.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 410 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A770 is a desktop one.

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 Quadro 410
Quadro 410
Intel Arc A770
Arc A770
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro 410 Quadro 410
vs
FX 4600 Quadro FX 4600
Arc A770 Arc A770
vs
RX Vega 56 Radeon RX Vega 56
Quadro 410 Quadro 410
vs
FX 1800 Quadro FX 1800
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
Arc A580 Arc A580
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
RTX A500 Mobile RTX A500 Mobile
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
RTX A500 RTX A500
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
Nvidia RTX 1000 Ada Generation Mobile RTX 1000 Ada Generation Mobile
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
NVS 310 NVS 310
vs
9400 GT GeForce 9400 GT
NVS 310 NVS 310
vs
RX 6400 RX 6400
Quadro 7000 Quadro 7000
vs
Quadro P600 Quadro P600
Quadro 7000 Quadro 7000
vs
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
Tesla K10 Tesla K10
vs
P106-100 P106 100

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

2.6 14 votes

Rate Quadro 410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5382 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 410 or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.