Arc A310 vs Radeon R9 285

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
16.59
+22.1%

R9 285 outperforms Arc A310 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking320370
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.41no data
Power efficiency6.3013.07
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTongaDG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 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 cores1792768
Core clock speed918 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate102.864.00
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPS3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth176.0 GB/s124.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.2.1701.3

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.

R9 285 16.59
+22.1%
Arc A310 13.59

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.

R9 285 6680
+22.1%
Arc A310 5472

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 285 8570
+1.3%
Arc A310 8464

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 HD45−50
+18.4%
38
−18.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Dota 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
World of Tanks 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+0%
54
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
World of Tanks 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+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 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how R9 285 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • R9 285 is 18% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.59 13.59
Recency 2 September 2014 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 75 Watt

R9 285 has a 22.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 153.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A310 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 R9 285
Radeon R9 285
Intel Arc A310
Arc A310

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.


4.2 78 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 260 votes

Rate Arc A310 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.