Arc A370M
VS
GeForce GTX 1650

Arc A370M vs GeForce GTX 1650

Intel

Arc A370M

2022Core: 300 MHzBoost: 1550 MHz
VS
NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

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. The Arc A370M is positioned at rank #211 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Arc A370M

#52
Radeon 8060S
MSRP: $800|Avg: $800
88%
#201
Radeon RX 550X (móvel)
MSRP: $35|Avg: $35
422%
#203
383%
#204
382%
#208
GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
347%
#209
Radeon RX 6300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $40
345%
#211
Arc A370M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#212
GeForce GTX 780M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $60
100%
#216
Radeon 8040S
MSRP: $400|Avg: $400
95%
#217
Radeon R7 +8G
MSRP: $49|Avg: $20
95%
#221
Radeon HD 6550A
MSRP: $30|Avg: $30
92%
#222
91%
#224
GeForce GT 640M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
88%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 53.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Arc A370M.

InsightArc A370MGeForce GTX 1650
Performance
Lower raw frame rates (-53.8%)
Leading raw performance (+53.8%)
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
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Arc A370M and GeForce GTX 1650

Intel

Arc A370M

The Arc A370M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in March 30 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1550 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,115 points.

NVIDIA

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 A370M scores 5,115 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 53.8%. The Arc A370M is built on Generation 12.7 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Arc A370M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.174 TFLOPS (Arc A370M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1550 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

FeatureArc A370MGeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score
5,115
7,869+54%
Architecture
Generation 12.7
Turing
Process Node
6 nm
12 nm
Shading Units
1024+14%
896
Compute (TFLOPS)
3.174 TFLOPS+6%
2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock
1550 MHz
1665 MHz+7%
ROPs
32
32
TMUs
64+14%
56
L1 Cache
1.5 MB+70%
0.88 MB
L2 Cache
4 MB+300%
1 MB

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureArc A370MGeForce 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: 112 GB/s (Arc A370M) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 14.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Arc A370M) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Arc A370M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureArc A370MGeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity
4 GB
4 GB
Memory Type
GDDR6
GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth
112 GB/s
128 GB/s+14%
Bus Width
64-bit
128-bit+100%
L2 Cache
4 MB+300%
1 MB
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Arc A370M) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

FeatureArc A370MGeForce 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 A370M) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A370M) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

FeatureArc A370MGeForce GTX 1650
Encoder
Xe Media Engine
NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder
Xe Media Engine
NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs
AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Arc A370M draws 35W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 72.7% difference. The Arc A370M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Arc A370M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 90 vs 70°C.

FeatureArc A370MGeForce GTX 1650
TDP
35W-53%
75W
Recommended PSU
350W
300W-14%
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
None
Length
0mm
229mm
Height
0mm
111mm
Slots
0-100%
2
Temp (Load)
90
70°C-22%
Perf/Watt
146.1+39%
104.9
💰

Value Analysis

The Arc A370M is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).

FeatureArc A370MGeForce GTX 1650
MSRP
$149
Avg Price (30d)
$75
Codename
DG2-128
TU117
Release
March 30 2022
April 23 2019
Ranking
#439
#323