Arc A310 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Arc A310
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc A310
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 44.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Arc A310.
| Insight | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-44.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+44.7%) |
| Longevity | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $100 for the Arc A310, it costs 25% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 92.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+92.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Arc A310 and GeForce GTX 1650
Arc A310
The Arc A310 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in October 12 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2000 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,438 points.
GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Arc A310 scores 5,438 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 44.7%. The Arc A310 is built on Generation 12.7 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (Arc A310) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.072 TFLOPS (Arc A310) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2000 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,438 | 7,869+45% |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Turing |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.072 TFLOPS+3% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz+20% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 56+75% |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB+25% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 124 GB/s (Arc A310) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 3.2% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Arc A310) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Arc A310 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 124 GB/s | 128 GB/s+3% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Arc A310) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc A310) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: AV1,H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP9 (Arc A310) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | AV1,H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc A310 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 0% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (Arc A310) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 169mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 300W |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 169mm | 229mm |
| Height | 69mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-7% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 72.5 | 104.9+45% |
Value Analysis
The Arc A310 launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 54.4 (Arc A310) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 92.8% better value. The Arc A310 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | Arc A310 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-33% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $75-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 54.4 | 104.9+93% |
| Codename | DG2-128 | TU117 |
| Release | October 12 2022 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #422 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc A310 and GeForce GTX 1650
