OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

Intel ARC A310 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

Intel ARC A310 Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel ARC A310
4.9/10

Overall score

Score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

8.9

User score

▼Worse than 88% of graphics cards
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

▼Worse than 83%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

44%

2.5

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

8.0

Power & Cooling

11%

9.2

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.8

Connectivity & Media

▼Worse than 90%
8.9

User score

User score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 80% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

9.8

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
▲Better than 80%
  • intel-arc-a310
  • intel-arc-a310
  • intel-arc-a310
  • intel-arc-a310
  • intel-arc-a310
intel-arc-a310
intel-arc-a310
intel-arc-a310
intel-arc-a310
intel-arc-a310
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Intel ARC A310

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

44%

2.5

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

8.0

Power & Cooling

11%

9.2

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.8

Connectivity & Media

4.5
User score
User score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 80% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

9.8

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
8.9
Popularity
Popularity
9.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Popularity:
Intel ARC A310 has a popularity score of 9.8 points, which is higher than that of 90.4% of products in this category.
9.8
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

6.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,504 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 1,504 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 96.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
840 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 840 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 82.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
5,439 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,439 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 93.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,160 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,160 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 94.4% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
3.07 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.07 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 92.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 88% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
GDDR version
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 15.9% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 97.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
124 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 124 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 93.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.3% of graphics cards and equal to 52.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 76.7% of graphics cards and equal to 22.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.6% of graphics cards and equal to 77.4% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.7% of graphics cards and equal to 79.3% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 8.3% of graphics cards and equal to 88.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 91% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 79.1% of graphics cards and equal to 9.5% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2, which is more advanced than on 66.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
10 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 10 Gbps, which is slower than on 63.1% of graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 93.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
43 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 43 W, which is lower than that of 98.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
Size
156x 69x 15 mm
Length
169 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 169 mm long, which is shorter than 95.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
69 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 69 mm tall, which is shorter than 92.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
202 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 202 g, which is lighter than 98.9% of graphics cards.
Show more

Intel ARC A310 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 116 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (169 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    169 mm vs 285 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 80.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (43 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    43 W vs 225 W
  • 10.7% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1937 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    1,937 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • 4.82x cheaper
    Intel ARC A310 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £530).
    £110 vs £530
  • 10.8% higher user score
    User score
    8.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel ARC A310
    the average graphics card
    Intel ARC A310 has a higher user score than the average graphics card (8.87 vs 8.000).
    8.87 vs 8
  • 2.33x more popular
    Intel ARC A310 is more popular than the average graphics card (9.84 vs 4.2).
    9.84 vs 4.22
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • 10.7% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1937 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    1,937 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 46.8% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (157 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
    157 mm² vs 295 mm²
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2 vs 1.4a).
    2.0 vs 1.4a
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 80.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (43 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    43 W vs 225 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 116 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (169 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    169 mm vs 285 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 80.2% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (202 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    202 g vs 1,021 g
  • 192 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    64 bit vs 256 bit
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 47.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1000 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • 34 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    6 vs 40
  • 12% worse value for money
    Intel ARC A310 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.43 vs 7.2).
    6.43 vs 7.2
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 47.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1000 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • 34 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    6 vs 40
  • 85.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (56 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    56 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 20.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 82.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (28 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    28 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 88.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    2.69 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 76% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5439 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    5,439 points vs 22,653 points
  • 89.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1504 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    1,504 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 48 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (96 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    96 vs 144
  • 90.8% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (840 points vs 9166 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9166 points.
    840 points vs 9,166 points
  • 82.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2160 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    2,160 points vs 12,074 points
  • 81.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (5.4 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    5.38 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 86.6% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (3.1 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    3.07 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 192 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    64 bit vs 256 bit
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 72.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (124 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    124 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 18.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (15500 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    15,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 99.1% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (1.1 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
    1.1 vs 128
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 20% larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (6 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    6 nm vs 5 nm
  • 1 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    September 2022
    2,022 vs 2,023
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • 68.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (7200 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    7,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1).
    2.0b vs 2.1
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • No 3D output
    This graphics card does not support 3D output, the average graphics card does.
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 38 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (38 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    38 dB vs 0 dB
  • 10 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (47 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    47 °C vs 37 °C
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about Intel ARC A310

  • Excellent for media transcoding and video editing thanks to hardware-accelerated AV1 encoding and QuickSync support.
  • Extremely power-efficient with a low TDP (40W–75W depending on model), requiring no external power connectors from the PSU.
  • Compact single-slot and low-profile designs make it ideal for Small Form Factor (SFF) builds and home server setups.
  • Offers a modern feature set including XeSS upscaling and Ray Tracing support at an entry-level price point.
  • Highly affordable, often found around the $99/£100 mark, making it a viable display adapter upgrade for older systems.

What we don't like about Intel ARC A310

  • Underwhelming gaming performance in demanding AAA titles, often requiring 'Low' settings for playable frame rates at 1080p.
  • A mandatory requirement for Resizable BAR (ReBAR) support on the motherboard to achieve optimal performance; older systems without it see significant slowdowns.
  • Persistent driver and software bugs, particularly with older game titles and occasional UI resets in the Intel Arc Control software.
  • Limited 4GB VRAM capacity can cause bottlenecks in modern, texture-heavy games or 4K video editing timelines.
  • Reports of specific hardware annoyances, such as a 'pulsing' fan behavior on some models where RPM fluctuates constantly during idle.

Verdict

The Intel Arc A310 is an entry-level desktop graphics card based on the 6nm Xe-HPG architecture, featuring 6 Xe-cores, 6 Ray Tracing units, and 96 Intel Xe Matrix Extensions (XMX) Engines. It is equipped with 4GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit interface with a 124 GB/s bandwidth and a graphics clock of 2000 MHz. Main pros include its low power consumption (75W TBP or lower, requiring no external power connectors), compact low-profile design ideal for small form factor PCs, and advanced hardware support for AV1 encoding/decoding. However, it faces significant cons such as limited 4GB VRAM which struggles with modern AAA gaming, reliance on Resizeable BAR (ReBAR) for optimal performance, and ongoing driver stability issues in older titles.

Compare Intel ARC A310 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel ARC A310 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found