NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GT vs Intel Arc A310
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc A310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 8800 GT and Arc A310 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗8800 GT outperforms Arc A310 by 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.+18%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better.GeForce 8800 GT vs Intel Arc A310: key takeaway
The comparison of 8800 GT and Arc A310 shows a 18% advantage for 8800 GT in gaming performance, while Arc A310 may still be stronger in efficiency and feature set. Use the sections below to check whether that lead comes from real FPS, specifications, efficiency, price or platform features.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
IntelPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3933
100100
100100
1360
COMPARISON RESULT
8800 GT is the best overall choice
8800 GT leads in combined game performance. 8800 GT offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
8800 GT leads in the combined performance index
8800 GT costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 82–87of 317
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 8800 GT
64 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 8800 GT
100/100 · Price $79The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
The Summary score section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
39Better
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34Better
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
32Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
62Better
58
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Device classDesktopDesktop
HDMI—HDMI 2.1
DisplayPort—mini-DisplayPort 2.0
DirectX10.012.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
TFLOPS0.3362.688Better
Power consumption125 W75 WBetter
Memory typeGDDR3GDDR6
Power connector6 pinNone
Clock speed600 MHz1750 - 2000 MHzBetter
Base clock600 MHz1750 MHzBetter
Boost clock600 MHz2000 MHzBetter
VRAM512 MB GDDR3Better4 GB GDDR6
Memory frequency1,8 GHz15,5 GHzBetter
Memory bus256 bitBetter64 bit
Memory bandwidth58 GB/s124 GB/sBetter
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4x8
Power consumption125 W75 WBetter
Process node65 nm6 nmBetter
Release date20072022
ArchitectureTeslaXe-HPG
ThicknessSingle-slotSingle-slot
Upscaling—XeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0
Launch price$79Better$169
Shader units / cores112768Better
Recommended PSU300 W200 WBetter
Length229 mmVaries by board
Die size324 mm²157 mm²Better
Memory cacheL2 0.06 MBL2 4 MB
Transistor count754 million7200 millionBetter
Max monitors34
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
USB Type-CNoNo
GAME TEST BENCH
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 8800 GT 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.
8800 GTArc A310
Verified H2HCommunity VerifiedEstimatedPredicted
Black Myth: Wukong
1080p High
23 FPSEstimated 64%
20 FPSEstimated 64%
1080p Ultra
20 FPSEstimated 64%
17 FPSEstimated 64%
1440p Ultra
11 FPSEstimated 58%
9 FPSEstimated 58%
4K Ultra
5 FPSEstimated 55%
5 FPSEstimated 55%
Black Myth: Wukong8800 GT23 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT11 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%8800 GT5 FPSEstimated 55%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%
Call of Duty: Warzone8800 GT23 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT11 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%8800 GT5 FPSEstimated 55%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%
Counter-Strike 28800 GT195 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A310165 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT137 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A310116 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT77 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31062 FPSEstimated 66%8800 GT29 FPSEstimated 63%Arc A31022 FPSEstimated 62%
Cyberpunk 20778800 GT126 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A310106 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT108 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31092 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT56 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31045 FPSEstimated 66%8800 GT19 FPSEstimated 63%Arc A31015 FPSEstimated 62%
Forza Horizon 58800 GT159 FPSEstimated 78%Arc A310134 FPSEstimated 78%8800 GT103 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31087 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT69 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31056 FPSEstimated 66%8800 GT43 FPSEstimated 63%Arc A31033 FPSEstimated 62%
God of War Ragnarök8800 GT23 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT11 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%8800 GT5 FPSEstimated 55%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%
Hogwarts Legacy8800 GT103 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31087 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT86 FPSEstimated 72%Arc A31073 FPSEstimated 72%8800 GT50 FPSEstimated 66%Arc A31041 FPSEstimated 66%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 63%Arc A31015 FPSEstimated 62%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 20248800 GT23 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT11 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%8800 GT5 FPSEstimated 55%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%
Monster Hunter Wilds8800 GT23 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT11 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%8800 GT5 FPSEstimated 55%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%
Starfield8800 GT23 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31020 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT20 FPSEstimated 64%Arc A31017 FPSEstimated 64%8800 GT11 FPSEstimated 58%Arc A3109 FPSEstimated 58%8800 GT5 FPSEstimated 55%Arc A3105 FPSEstimated 55%
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100393317%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100324227%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100324125%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001360129%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
The Detailed comparison section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100274550%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100284444%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100324125%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100244867%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100314128%
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
The Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
DirectX10.012.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
Upscaling—XeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
The Architecture and release section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
ArchitectureTeslaXe-HPG
Process node65 nm6 nmBetter
Release date20072022
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
The Core layout and clocks section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Transistor count754 million7200 millionBetter
Die size324 mm²157 mm²Better
Shader units / cores112768Better
Base clock600 MHz1750 MHzBetter
Boost clock600 MHz2000 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
The Form factor and compatibility section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4x8
Length229 mmVaries by board
ThicknessSingle-slotSingle-slot
Recommended PSU300 W200 WBetter
Power connector6 pinNone
Display outputs and limits
The Display outputs section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
HDMI—HDMI 2.1
DisplayPort—mini-DisplayPort 2.0
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors34
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
The VRAM capacity and bandwidth section compares 8800 GT and Arc A310 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
VRAM512 MB GDDR3Better4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeGDDR3GDDR6
Memory bus256 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS0.3362.688Better
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Other comparisons
Navi II 2CU 7xxx/9xxxAMDReviews and questions
AI EXPLAIN · HEAD TO HEAD
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.
REAL CONFIGURATIONS
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 8800 GT or Arc A310?+
8800 GT has the higher overall gaming score, while 8800 GT offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
8800 GT 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?+
8800 GT is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
8800 GT offers more overall performance, while 8800 GT offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
8800 GT is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
8800 GT is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
8800 GT leads in combined 1440p performance. 8800 GT can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
8800 GT 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 8800 GT 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.