Arc A770 vs Quadro GP100

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro GP100 with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

Quadro GP100
2016
16 GB HBM2, 235 Watt
40.88
+19.4%

GP100 outperforms Arc A770 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking98154
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.23
Power efficiency11.9710.47
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGP100DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 October 2016 (8 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329

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 cores35844096
Core clock speed1304 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speed1442 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors15,300 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)235 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate323.0614.4
Floating-point processing power10.34 TFLOPS19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs96128
TMUs224256
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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB16 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed715 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth732.2 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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

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
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.0-

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.

Quadro GP100 40.88
+19.4%
Arc A770 34.23

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 GP100 15714
+19.4%
Arc A770 13158

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 HD130−140
+16.1%
112
−16.1%
1440p75−80
+17.2%
64
−17.2%
4K45−50
+9.8%
41
−9.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.94
1440pno data5.14
4Kno data8.02

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 116
+0%
116
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Elden Ring 88
+0%
88
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 99
+0%
99
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 304
+0%
304
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Dota 2 105
+0%
105
+0%
Elden Ring 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 71
+0%
71
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 258
+0%
258
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+0%
105
+0%
Metro Exodus 99
+0%
99
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 83
+0%
83
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 216
+0%
216
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
World of Tanks 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 158
+0%
158
+0%
Metro Exodus 91
+0%
91
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60
+0%
60
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Elden Ring 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 48
+0%
48
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48
+0%
48
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 89
+0%
89
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

This is how Quadro GP100 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro GP100 is 16% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro GP100 is 17% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro GP100 is 10% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 40.88 34.23
Recency 1 October 2016 12 October 2022
Chip lithography 16 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 235 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro GP100 has a 19.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 4.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro GP100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A770 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro GP100 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A770 is a desktop 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 Quadro GP100
Quadro GP100
Intel Arc A770
Arc A770

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.


3.6 14 votes

Rate Quadro GP100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 5352 votes

Rate Arc A770 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.