Arc A770 vs Radeon RX Vega M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M and Arc A770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega M
2018
15 Watt
17.11

Arc A770 outperforms RX Vega M by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking322152
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data56.00
Power efficiency78.6710.49
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameVegaDG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 February 2018 (6 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 cores5124096
Core clock speed720 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speed1190 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors4,500 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate38.08614.4
Floating-point processing powerno data19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs32256
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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x16
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512.0 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 Connectorsno data1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan-1.3

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.

RX Vega M 17.11
Arc A770 34.21
+99.9%

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.

RX Vega M 6575
Arc A770 13150
+100%

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 HD55−60
−104%
112
+104%
1440p30−35
−113%
64
+113%
4K18−21
−128%
41
+128%

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%

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%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+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%
Far Cry 5 71
+0%
71
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 258
+0%
258
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+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%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+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%
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%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+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%
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%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

This is how RX Vega M and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is 104% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770 is 113% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770 is 128% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.11 34.21
Recency 1 February 2018 12 October 2022
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 225 Watt

RX Vega M has 1400% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 99.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M 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 RX Vega M
Radeon RX Vega M
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.


1.7 9 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5357 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.