GeForce GTX 950 vs Arc A310
GeForce GTX 950
Popular choices:
Arc A310
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
Performance Per Dollar Arc A310
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc A310 is significantly newer (2022 vs 2015). The Arc A310 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 950 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Arc A310 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 950.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 950 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $48 versus $100 for the Arc A310, it costs 52% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 105.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+105.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($48) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 GeForce GTX 950 and Arc A310
GeForce GTX 950
The GeForce GTX 950 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 20 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1024 MHz to 1188 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 90W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,357 points. Launch price was $159.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 950 scores 5,357 and the Arc A310 reaches 5,438 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 950 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Arc A310 uses Generation 12.7, both on 28 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 950) vs 768 (Arc A310). Raw compute: 1.825 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 950) vs 3.072 TFLOPS (Arc A310). Boost clocks: 1188 MHz vs 2000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,357 | 5,438+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.825 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS+68% |
| Boost Clock | 1188 MHz | 2000 MHz+68% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 48+50% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 0.28 MB | 1.1 MB+293% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 950 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A310 has 4 GB. The Arc A310 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 106 GB/s (GeForce GTX 950) vs 124 GB/s (Arc A310) — a 17% advantage for the Arc A310. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 950) vs 4 MB (Arc A310) — the Arc A310 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 106 GB/s | 124 GB/s+17% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_1 (GeForce GTX 950) vs 12 Ultimate (Arc A310). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 2nd Gen (GeForce GTX 950) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A310). Decoder: NVDEC 2nd Gen vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (GeForce GTX 950) vs AV1,H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP9 (Arc A310).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 2nd Gen | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | NVDEC 2nd Gen | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | AV1,H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 950 draws 90W versus the Arc A310's 75W — a 18.2% difference. The Arc A310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 950) vs 300W (Arc A310). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 202mm vs 169mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 90W | 75W-17% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 202mm | 169mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 65°C |
| Perf/Watt | 59.5 | 72.5+22% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 950 launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $48, while the Arc A310 launched at $100 and now averages $100. The GeForce GTX 950 costs 52% less ($52 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 111.6 (GeForce GTX 950) vs 54.4 (Arc A310) — the GeForce GTX 950 offers 105.1% better value. The Arc A310 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 950 | Arc A310 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | $100-37% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $48-52% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 111.6+105% | 54.4 |
| Codename | GM206 | DG2-128 |
| Release | August 20 2015 | October 12 2022 |
| Ranking | #425 | #422 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 950 and Arc A310
