Arc A380 vs Radeon R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 and Arc A380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.58

Arc A380 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking600331
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data43.67
Power efficiency7.0214.86
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameCape VerdeDG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 July 2016 (8 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

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 cores5121024
Core clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60131.2
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264
Tensor Coresno data128
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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length168 mm222 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s186.0 GB/s

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 HDMI, 1x 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 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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 HD16−18
−194%
47
+194%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 61
+0%
61
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50
+0%
50
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 72
+0%
72
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+0%
37
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80
+0%
80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
+0%
29
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
Hitman 3 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 52
+0%
52
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 61
+0%
61
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 25
+0%
25
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how R7 350 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 194% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.58 16.10
Recency 6 July 2016 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 75 Watt

R7 350 has 36.4% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 188.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

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.


3.8 476 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 810 votes

Rate Arc A380 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.