Intel
Intel Arc A310 vs GeForce Go 6600
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GeForce Go 6600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A310 and GeForce Go 6600 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Arc A310 outperforms GeForce Go 6600 by ~18% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+18%
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: Intel Arc A310 (~66%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Arc A310
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Reasons to consider GeForce Go 6600
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL 1.x · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
Intel
NVIDIAPerformance
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3328
10064
607
Graphics card ranking
Positions 122–127of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce Go 6600
105 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
33Better
28
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
30Better
27
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
28Better
24
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
25
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
53Better
32
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
Device class
HDMI
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPS
Power consumption—
Thickness
Memory type
Upscaling
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumption—
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSU
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / cores
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache
Transistor countBetter
Max monitors
Max resolution
Length
USB Type-C
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Arc A310 and GeForce Go 6600 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.
Arc A310GeForce Go 6600
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
165 FPS
143 FPS
1080p Ultra
116 FPS
101 FPS
1440p Ultra
62 FPS
54 FPS
4K Ultra
22 FPS
19 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Arc A310165 FPSGeForce Go 6600143 FPSArc A310116 FPSGeForce Go 6600101 FPSArc A31062 FPSGeForce Go 660054 FPSArc A31022 FPSGeForce Go 660019 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Arc A310106 FPSGeForce Go 660092 FPSArc A31092 FPSGeForce Go 660080 FPSArc A31045 FPSGeForce Go 660039 FPSArc A31015 FPSGeForce Go 660013 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Arc A310134 FPSGeForce Go 6600117 FPSArc A31087 FPSGeForce Go 660075 FPSArc A31056 FPSGeForce Go 660049 FPSArc A31033 FPSGeForce Go 660029 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyArc A31087 FPSGeForce Go 660075 FPSArc A31073 FPSGeForce Go 660063 FPSArc A31041 FPSGeForce Go 660035 FPSArc A31015 FPSGeForce Go 660013 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100332816%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100422263%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100412260%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100607158%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001000200%
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 / 100451981%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100442075%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100412260%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 1004816100%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100412260%
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
DirectX12.29.3
Vulkan1.4Not supported
OpenGL4.62.0
UpscalingXeSSNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0CUDA / OpenCL 1.x
Architecture and release
ArchitectureXe-HPGCurie
Process node6 nmBetter110 nm
Release date20222005
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count7200 millionBetter146 million
Die size157 mm²154 mm²Better
Shader units / cores768Not publicly specified
Base clock1750 MHzBetter300 MHz
Boost clock2000 MHzBetter300 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 4x8MXM-II
LengthVaries by boardOEM dependent
ThicknessSingle-slotMXM Module
Recommended PSU200 WOEM dependent
Power connectorNoneNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1OEM dependent
DisplayPortmini-DisplayPort 2.0OEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitors4OEM dependent
Max resolution7680 × 4320Depends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM4 GB GDDR6Better0.25 GB DDR
Memory typeGDDR6DDR / DDR2
Memory bus64 bit128 bitBetter
TFLOPS2.688Not published (legacy architecture)
Other comparisons
Reviews 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 / 67
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 (4)
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: Arc A310 or GeForce Go 6600?+
Arc A310 has the higher overall gaming score, while Arc A310 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GeForce Go 6600 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?+
GeForce Go 6600 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Arc A310 offers more overall performance, while Arc A310 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GeForce Go 6600 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Arc A310 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Arc A310 leads in combined 1440p performance. Arc A310 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Arc A310 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 Arc A310 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.