Intel Arc A310VSGeForce GTX 1630
Performance, specifications and real-world gaming comparison
♜ WINNERIntel Arc A310+3%Better gaming performance
Intel
Arc A310
VSWINNERArc A3103%Better gaming performance
NVIDIA
GTX 1630
Performance3332
Efficiency100100
Price / performance100100
Data confidence6969
Fixed-scale H2H model. Missing metrics are omitted instead of estimated from the overall score.
Intel Arc A310 vs GeForce GTX 1630: key takeaway
The comparison of Arc A310 and GTX 1630 shows a 3% advantage for Arc A310 in gaming performance, while GTX 1630 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.
Intel
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3332
100100
100100
6060
COMPARISON RESULT
The devices received the same overall score
Arc A310 leads in combined game performance. Arc A310 offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
Performance is nearly identical
GTX 1630 costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 56–61of 61
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Intel Arc A310
0 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce GTX 1630
100/100 · Price $119The 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 Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
33Better
32
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
30Better
29
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
28Better
27
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
58
58
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Device classDesktopDesktop
HDMIHDMI 2.11x HDMI 2.0
DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 2.01x DisplayPort 1.4a
DirectX12.212.1
Vulkan1.41.4
OpenGL4.64.6
TFLOPS2.688Better1.828
Power consumption75 W75 W
ThicknessSingle-slotSingle-slot
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
UpscalingXeSS—
Power connectorNoneNone
Release date20222022
ArchitectureXe-HPGTuring
Clock speed1750 - 2000 MHzBetter1740 - 1785 MHz
Base clock1750 MHzBetter1740 MHz
Boost clock2000 MHzBetter1785 MHz
VRAM4 GB GDDR64 GB GDDR6
Memory frequency15,5 GHzBetter12 GHz
Memory bus64 bit64 bit
Memory bandwidth124 GB/sBetter96 GB/s
InterfacePCIe 4x8PCIe 3x8
Power consumption75 W75 W
Process node6 nmBetter12 nm
Recommended PSU200 WBetter250 W
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 7.5
Launch price$169$119Better
Shader units / cores768Better512
Die size157 mm²Better200 mm²
Memory cacheL2 4 MBBetterL1 64 KB, L2 1 MB
Transistor count7200 millionBetter4700 million
Max monitors43
Max resolution7680 × 43207680 × 4320
LengthVaries by board145 mm
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 Arc A310 and GTX 1630 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 A310GTX 1630
Verified H2HCommunity VerifiedEstimatedPredicted
Black Myth: Wukong
1080p High
20 FPSEstimated 64%
19 FPSEstimated 64%
1080p Ultra
17 FPSEstimated 64%
16 FPSEstimated 64%
1440p Ultra
9 FPSEstimated 58%
9 FPSEstimated 58%
4K Ultra
5 FPSEstimated 55%
5 FPSEstimated 55%
Black Myth: Wukong20Estimated 64%19Estimated 64%17Estimated 64%16Estimated 64%9Estimated 58%9Estimated 58%5Estimated 55%5Estimated 55%
Call of Duty: Warzone20Estimated 64%19Estimated 64%17Estimated 64%16Estimated 64%9Estimated 58%9Estimated 58%5Estimated 55%5Estimated 55%
Counter-Strike 2165Estimated 72%162Estimated 72%116Estimated 72%114Estimated 72%62Estimated 66%62Estimated 66%22Estimated 62%22Estimated 62%
Cyberpunk 2077106Estimated 72%105Estimated 72%92Estimated 72%90Estimated 72%45Estimated 66%45Estimated 66%15Estimated 62%15Estimated 62%
Forza Horizon 5134Estimated 78%132Estimated 78%87Estimated 72%86Estimated 72%56Estimated 66%55Estimated 66%33Estimated 62%32Estimated 62%
God of War Ragnarök20Estimated 64%19Estimated 64%17Estimated 64%16Estimated 64%9Estimated 58%9Estimated 58%5Estimated 55%5Estimated 55%
Hogwarts Legacy87Estimated 72%86Estimated 72%73Estimated 72%72Estimated 72%41Estimated 66%40Estimated 66%15Estimated 62%15Estimated 62%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 202420Estimated 64%19Estimated 64%17Estimated 64%16Estimated 64%9Estimated 58%9Estimated 58%5Estimated 55%5Estimated 55%
Monster Hunter Wilds20Estimated 64%19Estimated 64%17Estimated 64%16Estimated 64%9Estimated 58%9Estimated 58%5Estimated 55%5Estimated 55%
Starfield20Estimated 64%19Estimated 64%17Estimated 64%16Estimated 64%9Estimated 58%9Estimated 58%5Estimated 55%5Estimated 55%
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10033323%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10042405%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10041402%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10060600%
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 Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10045450%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10044432%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10041402%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10048480%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10041410%
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 Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
DirectX12.212.1
Vulkan1.41.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingXeSS—
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 7.5
Architecture and release
The Architecture and release section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
ArchitectureXe-HPGTuring
Process node6 nmBetter12 nm
Release date20222022
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
The Core layout and clocks section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Transistor count7200 millionBetter4700 million
Die size157 mm²Better200 mm²
Shader units / cores768Better512
Base clock1750 MHzBetter1740 MHz
Boost clock2000 MHzBetter1785 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
The Form factor and compatibility section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
InterfacePCIe 4x8PCIe 3x8
LengthVaries by board145 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotSingle-slot
Recommended PSU200 WBetter250 W
Power connectorNoneNone
Display outputs and limits
The Display outputs section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
HDMIHDMI 2.11x HDMI 2.0
DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 2.01x DisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors43
Max resolution7680 × 43207680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
The VRAM capacity and bandwidth section compares Arc A310 and GTX 1630 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
VRAM4 GB GDDR64 GB GDDR6
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Memory bus64 bit64 bit
TFLOPS2.688Better1.828
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: Arc A310 or GTX 1630?+
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?+
GTX 1630 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?+
GTX 1630 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?+
GTX 1630 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.