The Arc A370M is at least 2x slower gaming GPU than the Radeon RX 6900 XT. We cannot compare value as at least one GPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the Arc A370M
- Consumes up to 88% less energy – 35 vs 300 Watts
Advantages of the Radeon RX 6900 XT
- At least 2x faster GPU for gaming
- Up to 300% more VRAM memory – 16 vs 4 GB
Arc A370M vs Radeon RX 6900 XT for Gaming
The GPU's performance in selected game and settings
All items are out of stock
Radeon RX 6900 XT
Oct 28th, 2020
Average FPS
166
100%
Min 1% FPS
102
100%
Price, €
€1470.12
100%
Value, €/FPS
€8.85/FPS
100%
Buy on Amazon
€1,470.12
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
€1,855.23
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
€999.02
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
€2,029.68
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
€2,343.53
In Stock
Buy on Amazon
€2,514.85
In Stock
Arc A370M vs Radeon RX 6900 XT in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Arc A370M vs Radeon RX 6900 XT in synthetic GPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Arc A370M vs Radeon RX 6900 XT in core GPU performance specifications
Arc A370M
Mar 30th, 2022
Memory
4 GB
25%
Memory Bandwidth
112 GB/s
22%
Pixel Fillrate
65.6 GPixel/s
23%
Texture Fillrate
131.2 GTexel/s
18%
FP32
4.198 TFLOPS
18%
Radeon RX 6900 XT
Oct 28th, 2020
Memory
16 GB
100%
Memory Bandwidth
512 GB/s
100%
Pixel Fillrate
288 GPixel/s
100%
Texture Fillrate
720 GTexel/s
100%
FP32
23.04 TFLOPS
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
Arc A370M | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 30th, 2022 | Release Date | Oct 28th, 2020 |
| Not Available | MSRP | $999.00 |
| Alchemist | Generation | Navi II |
Mobile | Segment | Desktop |
35 W | Power Consumption | 300 W |
| Memory | ||
| 4 GB | Memory Size | 16 GB |
| GDDR6 | Memory Type | GDDR6 |
| 64-bit | Memory Bus | 256-bit |
| 112 GB/s | Bandwidth | 512 GB/s |
| Theoretical Performance | ||
| 65.6 GPixel/s | Pixel Fillrate | 288 GPixel/s |
| 131.2 GTexel/s | Texture Fillrate | 720 GTexel/s |
| 4.198 TFLOPS | FP32 | 23.04 TFLOPS |
