AMD
Radeon 760M 8600G vs Intel Arc A310
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc A310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 760M 8600G and Arc A310 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗760M 8600G outperforms Arc A310 by ~45% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+45%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon 760M 8600G (~2%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 760M 8600G
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · FSR
Reasons to consider Arc A310
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
IntelPerformance
Price / performance
4833
100100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 14–19of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon 760M 8600G
64 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Intel Arc A310
Price $151.00Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
48Better
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
41Better
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
39Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
47
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
54Better
53
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
HDMI
DisplayPort
Power consumption—
TFLOPSBetter
Clock speedBetter
VRAM
Upscaling
Compute API
Memory type
Memory frequency—
Memory bandwidth—
Interface
Power consumption—
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
Process nodeBetter
Release date
Launch price—
Max monitors
Max resolution
Recommended PSU
Length
Thickness
Architecture
Transistor count
Die size
Shader units / cores
USB Type-C
Memory cache
Memory bus
Power connector
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 760M 8600G and Arc A310 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
760M 8600GArc A310
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
197 FPS
165 FPS
1080p Ultra
139 FPS
116 FPS
1440p Ultra
108 FPS
62 FPS
4K Ultra
54 FPS
22 FPS
Counter-Strike 2760M 8600G197 FPSArc A310165 FPS760M 8600G139 FPSArc A310116 FPS760M 8600G108 FPSArc A31062 FPS760M 8600G54 FPSArc A31022 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077760M 8600G127 FPSArc A310106 FPS760M 8600G110 FPSArc A31092 FPS760M 8600G78 FPSArc A31045 FPS760M 8600G36 FPSArc A31015 FPS
Forza Horizon 5760M 8600G160 FPSArc A310134 FPS760M 8600G104 FPSArc A31087 FPS760M 8600G97 FPSArc A31056 FPS760M 8600G79 FPSArc A31033 FPS
Hogwarts Legacy760M 8600G104 FPSArc A31087 FPS760M 8600G87 FPSArc A31073 FPS760M 8600G70 FPSArc A31041 FPS760M 8600G37 FPSArc A31015 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100483337%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100564229%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100484116%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100060200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1000100200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10048456%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10048449%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100484116%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10048480%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100484116%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.212.2
Vulkan1.31.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingFSRXeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureNot publicly specifiedXe-HPG
Process node4 nmBetter6 nm
Release date20232022
Device classMobileDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified7200 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified157 mm²
Shader units / coresNot publicly specified768
Base clock800 MHz1750 MHzBetter
Boost clock2800 MHzBetter2000 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfaceIGPPCIe 4x8
LengthOEM dependentVaries by board
ThicknessOEM dependentSingle-slot
Recommended PSUOEM dependent200 W
Power connectorIntegrated laptop powerNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIOEM dependentHDMI 2.1
DisplayPortOEM dependentmini-DisplayPort 2.0
USB Type-COEM dependentNo
Max monitorsOEM dependent4
Max resolutionOEM dependent7680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM- SMA4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeSMAGDDR6
Memory busSystem memory interface64 bit
TFLOPS5.32Better2.688
Other comparisons
GTX 1650NVIDIAReviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 65
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 760M 8600G or Arc A310?+
760M 8600G has the higher overall gaming score, while 760M 8600G offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
760M 8600G is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
760M 8600G is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
760M 8600G offers more overall performance, while 760M 8600G offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
760M 8600G is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
760M 8600G is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
760M 8600G leads in combined 1440p performance. 760M 8600G can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
760M 8600G is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Arc A310 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Arc A310 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 760M 8600G if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.