Radeon 740M 8300GVSIntel Arc A310
Performance, specifications and real-world gaming comparison
🎮 Testé dans 0 jeux▣ 3 resolutions: 1080p / 1440p / 4K↗ Données actuelles du catalogue♢ Testing methodology
♜ VAINQUEURRadeon 740M 8300G+35%Meilleures performances globales
AMD
740M 8300G
VSVAINQUEUR740M 8300G30%Indice global H2H
Intel
Arc A310
Performances7536
Prix / performances100100
Data confidence3060
Fixed-scale H2H model. Missing metrics are omitted instead of estimated from the overall score.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMDIntelPerformance
Price / performance
7536
100100
COMMUNAUTÉ · DONNÉES VÉRIFIÉES
Ouvrir les setups de streamers→Matériel utilisé par les streamers
Configurations publiques réelles liées à chaque appareil.
AMD740M 8300G0Aucun setup public vérifié pour l’instant
IntelArc A3100Aucun setup public vérifié pour l’instant
RÉSULTAT DE LA COMPARAISON
740M 8300G is the best overall choice
740M 8300G leads in combined gaming performance. 740M 8300G offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
740M 8300G leads in the combined performance index
Arc A310 costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 4–9of 723
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon 740M 8300G
0 J’aimeHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Radeon 740M 8300G
100/100 · Price $169The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
NOTE GLOBALE
Aperçu
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
75Better
36
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
60Better
32
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
58Better
30
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
74
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
81Better
60
COMPARAISON COMPLÈTE
Caractéristiques
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
TDP—75 W
HDMI——
DisplayPort—4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
USB Type-C——
DirectX—12.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL—4.6
TFLOPS2.87Better2.688
Clock speed800 - 2600 MHz1750 - 2000 MHzBetter
Video memory- SMA4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeSMAGDDR6
Memory clock—15,5 GHz
Memory bus—64 bit
Bandwidth—124 GB/s
InterfaceIGPPCIe 4x8
Power connector—None
Power consumption—75 W
Release date20232022
Architecture—Xe-HPG
Base clock800 MHz1750 MHzBetter
Boost clock2600 MHzBetter2000 MHz
Process node4 nmBetter6 nm
Recommended PSU—200 W
Length——
Thickness—Single-slot
Max monitors——
Max resolution——
Upscaling——
Compute API—OpenCL 3.0
Launch price—$169
Transistor count—7200 million
Die size—157 mm²
Shader units / Cores—768
Memory cache—L2 4 MB
FPS en jeu
Loading test-rig results…
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100753670%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100774455%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100754354%
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 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100754746%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100754648%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100754354%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100754942%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100754354%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
API and SDK compatibility
DirectX—12.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL—4.6
Upscaling——
Compute API—OpenCL 3.0
Basic information
Architecture—Xe-HPG
Process node4 nmMeilleur6 nm
Release date20232022
Detailed specifications
Transistor count—7200 million
Die size—157 mm²
Shader units / Cores—768
Base clock800 MHz1750 MHzMeilleur
Boost clock2600 MHzMeilleur2000 MHz
Form factor and compatibility
InterfaceIGPPCIe 4x8
Length——
Thickness—Single-slot
Recommended PSU—200 W
Power connector—None
Connectivity and outputs
HDMI——
DisplayPort—4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
USB Type-C——
Max monitors——
Max resolution——
VRAM capacity and type
Video memory- SMA4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeSMAGDDR6
Memory bus—64 bit
TFLOPS2.87Meilleur2.688
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Autres comparaisons
205NVIDIAAvis et questions
EXPLICATION IA · HEAD TO HEAD
Expliquer cette comparaison
Au-delà des pourcentages : causes, caractéristiques pertinentes et impact pratique derrière chaque graphique.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
CONFIGURATIONS RÉELLES
Expériences des propriétaires
Configurations réelles, résultats et retours de la communauté.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Questions fréquentes sur la comparaison
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 740M 8300G or Arc A310?+
740M 8300G has the higher overall gaming score, while 740M 8300G offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
740M 8300G 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?+
740M 8300G is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
740M 8300G offers more overall performance, while 740M 8300G offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
740M 8300G is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
740M 8300G is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
740M 8300G leads in combined 1440p performance. 740M 8300G can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
740M 8300G 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 740M 8300G 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.