Intel Arc A770 Graphics Card Is 14% Faster Than NVIDIA’s RTX 3060 In Official 1080p Ray Tracing Game Benchmarks
Intel has finally given us the latest performance benchmarks of its flagship Alchemist graphics card, the Arc A770, which has been compared against the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 in several titles with ray-tracing enabled.
Intel Arc A770 Graphics Card To Deliver 14% Faster Performance Than NVIDIA’s RTX 3060 at 1080p With Ray Tracing, Beta Driver Delivers 25% Performance Boost
In the latest benchmarks, Intel has finally shown us the comparative benchmarks of its flagship Arc A770 graphics card against the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060. As per the official benchmarks, the card should be offering an average of 14% better performance than the competition and around 10% better performance than the Arc A750 which was also benchmarked previously. The graphics card has been tested across a range of games and in 11 out of the 17 games tested, the Arc A770 turns out to be the winner while in two titles, the card matches the RTX 3060 and loses in four AAA titles.
All titles were tested at 1080p with Ray Tracing enabled and Intel has already stated that their Arc lineup will offer competitive or better Ray Tracing capabilities compared to NVIDIA’s RTX in the same segment. The graphics cards will also offer competitive prices. Now considering that the RTX 3060 Ti is 25% faster than the RTX 3060 Non-Ti on average, the Arc A770 may end up a bit slower than the Ti variant but its pricing will be a tad bit lower compared to the $399 US MSRP of NVIDIA’s card while offering twice the VRAM capacity.
Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA RTX 3060 (1080p Ray Tracing)
Gaming Title | Intel Arc A770 (FPS Max) | NVIDIA Geforce RTX 3060 (FPS Max) | Difference (A770 vs 3060) |
---|---|---|---|
The DioField Chronicle | 112 | 112 | 0% |
F1 2021 | 108 | 92 | +17% |
Resident Evil Village | 94 | 82 | +15% |
Deathloop | 89 | 90 | -1% |
Shadow of The Tomb Raider | 81 | 78 | +4% |
Dying Light 2 | 77 | 60 | +28% |
Arcadegeddon | 68 | 50 | +36% |
Battlefield V | 67 | 81 | -17% |
Metro Exodus | 65 | 49 | +33% |
Control | 62 | 52 | +19% |
Guardians of The Galaxy | 57 | 68 | -16% |
Hitman 3 | 54 | 43 | +26% |
Watch Dogs Legion | 47 | 39 | +21% |
F1 2022 | 47 | 52 | -10% |
Ghostwire Tokyo | 47 | 45 | +4% |
Fortnite (April 2022) | 36 | 23 | +57% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 33 | 30 | +17% |
— | — | Average In 17 Games | +14% |
Intel also provides some XeSS + Ray Tracing performance numbers to the mix once again using the Arc A770 graphics card. We already saw a range of performance numbers with XeSS Balanced and Performance presets but here, we get to see how much a boost the technology can deliver in more intensive titles with Ray Tracing enabled. As the benchmarks show, the Performance XeSS mode is going to offer up to a 2.13x boost while the balanced mode is going to offer up to a 76% boost in titles. The average performance uplift comes down to +47.2% in the Balanced mode and +74% in the XeSS Performance mode.
2 of 9
Intel Arc A770 XeSS + Ray Tracing Performance
Gaming Title | Arc A770 Ray Tracing Native | Arc A770 Ray Tracing (XeSS Balanced) | Arc A770 Ray Tracing (XeSS Performance) | Native vs XeSS Balanced | Native vs XeSS Performance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Diofield Chroncile | 76 | 101 | 114 | +77% | +113% |
Arcadegeddon | 53 | 74 | 89 | +59% | +100% |
Shadow of The Tomb Raider | 62 | 79 | 87 | +27% | +40% |
Hitman 3 | 34 | 54 | 68 | +40% | +68% |
Ghostwire Tokyo | 30 | 53 | 64 | +33% | +50% |
— | — | — | Average in 5 Games | +47. 2% | +74% |
There are only a few cases where Intel has showcased the performance improvement it is getting with its new Beta Driver which can offer up to a 25% increase in performance. It is not known if the other titles were also tested with the same driver but if the final driver does offer higher graphics performance than what we are looking at right now, then we can get around 15-20% uplift over the RTX 3060 which would be nice.
2 of 9
Intel highlights that its main advantage in Ray Tracing comes from the TSU or Thread Sorting Unit. Each Xe Core is equipped with an RTU and a TSU. The TSU core delivers high-performance and asynchronous ray tracing capabilities while the RTU (Ray Tracing Unit) is responsible for quickly tracing rays through the geometry structure and can handle 12 box intersections and a triangle intersection per cycle.
The result of implementing these cores is seen in 3DMark’s DirectX Raytracing feature test which shows up to a 60% boost in GSamples/s performance. The Arc TSU also delivers up to 2 times the performance boost in Shader performance.
2 of 9
And lastly, Intel is announcing today that they are bringing Ray Tracing to Gotham Knights when it hits store shelves on the 21st of October.
Intel Arc A770 Graphics Card Specifications
The Intel Arc 7 lineup is going to utilize the flagship ACM-G10 GPU and we already know about the mobility variants which include the Arc A770M and the Arc A730M. Similarly, the Arc A770 is one of the top-end variants for desktop PCs that is equipped with the full ACM-G10 configuration, utilizing 32 Xe-Cores for 4096 ALUs, and 32 ray tracing units.
In terms of clocks, the GPU should operate at a peak boost of 2.4 GHz which is always going to be higher than its advertised engine clock speed. At 2400 MHz, the GPU should be able to deliver close to 20 TFLOPs of FP32 horsepower.
The card also features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 256-bit bus interface. The GPU is supplied power through an 8+6 pin connector configuration which maxes out at 300W though the actual TGP/TBP should be lower than that around the 250W range. The demo showed the card running at around 190W.
As for performance, we should expect the Arc A770 to land in between the NVIDIA RTX 3060 & the RTX 3060 Ti considering the Arc A750 is up to 5% faster than the RTX 3060 on average. We recently got a demo with the Arc A770 running several AAA games with raytracing and XeSS enabled. More on that here. The Intel Arc graphics card lineup is expected to launch this month so stay tuned for more info.
Intel Arc A-Series Desktop Graphics Card Lineup ‘Official’:
Graphics Card Variant | GPU Die | Shading Units (Cores) | XMX Units | GPU Clock (Graphics) | Memory Capacity | Memory Speed | Memory Bus | Bandwidth | TGP | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arc A770 | Arc ACM-G10 | 4096 (32 Xe-Cores) | 512 | 2. 10 GHz | 16 GB GDDR6 | 17.5 Gbps | 256-bit | 560 GB/s | 225W | $349 |
Arc A770 | Arc ACM-G10 | 4096 (32 Xe-Cores) | 512 | 2.10 GHz | 8 GB GDDR6 | 16 Gbps | 256-bit | 512 GB/s | 225W | $329 US |
Arc A750 | Arc ACM-G10 | 3584 (28 Xe-Cores) | 448 | 2.05 GHz | 8 GB GDDR6 | 16 Gbps | 256-bit | 512 GB/s | 225W | $249 US |
Arc A580 | Arc ACM-G10 | 3072 (24 Xe-Cores) | 384 | 1.70 GHz | 8 GB GDDR6 | 16 Gbps | 256-bit | 512 GB/s | 175W | $249 US |
Arc A380 | Arc ACM-G11 | 1024 (8 Xe-Cores) | 128 | 2.00 GHz | 6 GB GDDR6 | 15.5 Gbps | 96-bit | 186 GB/s | 75W | $139 US |
Arc A310 | Arc ACM-G11 | 512 (4 Xe-Cores)) | 64 | TBD | 4 GB GDDR6 | 16 Gbps | 64-bit | TBD | 75W | $59-$99 US |
MAGIX Vegas Pro 18 Processor & Graphics Card Performance – Techgage
MAGIX released the latest version of its popular Vegas Pro movie editor last month, and as usual, there are a number of new features that make for an alluring upgrade. As has become a bit of a tradition here, we’re taking a fresh look at Vegas Pro performance with the new version 18, focusing on both processors and graphics cards.
Our included tests this go around follow in the footsteps of those used for VP17, but they’ve been once again gone over to make sure they’re using the hardware well, and deliver relevant results. On that note, a few new tests have also been added, taking advantage of the new Colorization and Style Transfer AI FX in our CPU testing, and Black Bar Fill in our GPU testing.
Vegas Pro 18 with Style Transfer and Black Bar Fill FX
Both of the AI FX added to VP18 will offer varied results, as you’d likely expect from artificial intelligence. Style Transfer offers you a number of classic styles to apply to your video, such as inspirations from van Gogh and Picasso, while Colorize adds what will hopefully be believable coloring to your black-and-white videos. Black Bar Fill will add a frame around a video that mirrors a blurred portion of the frame (seen above with Style Transfer added).
It’s worth noting that the Denoise FX has made a return to VP18, and depending on the use case, it could be used instead of Median. While both seem to offer similar denoising features, MAGIX tells us that they are quite different, and the denoising effect of Median won’t be as effective as Denoise FX. In our testing, we tend to agree with that, although the performance impact of Denoise vs. Median favored the latter. Just a few seconds of footage would have taken tens of minutes to encode with Denoise FX, so we’ll revisit later and see if that can be improved.
As we’ve seen in the past couple of versions of Vegas Pro, if you own an NVIDIA professional-series graphics card, you might need to manually add a profile inside of NVIDIA’s Control Panel in order to gain full acceleration for some of the FX filters, such as LUT and Median. This issue doesn’t seem to plague GeForce cards, but does impact both TITAN and Quadro.
Before diving into performance, we decided to do a little bit of an investigation into the quality of the output between AMD and NVIDIA with their respective hardware encoders, VCE and NVENC, and some of what we found is pretty interesting (to be clear, this is the encoder used in addition to GPU acceleration). When looking at the first few frames of our basic scenes test, which begins with birds hopping around on some beach chairs, we noticed that the AMD output had color noise and artifacting in parts, whereas they weren’t seen on NVIDIA. This all clears up within a second or two, and both outputs from AMD and NVIDIA are basically equal thereafter.
This is interesting to us, considering the fact that AMD hardware typically performs better than NVIDIA in certain FX encodes. It made us wonder if that meant NVIDIA might be the better choice even if AMD happens to churn through certain tests quicker. We then looked at our Median test, and noticed that artifacts could be easily seen on NVIDIA cards (both GeForce and Quadro), but never seemed to show up on Radeon (the artifacts appear as colored blocks in the top-left of the screenshot in the third image of the slider). What makes this complicated is that we’re not sure what causes the artifacts, as the results haven’t been consistent.
More than anything, these are issues we’re mentioning just to mention them. It’s hard to factor these oddities into an AMD vs. NVIDIA debate since some encodes behave differently on each. With AMD, it does mean that the first few frames could be a little blotchy, so timeline cropping might have to take that into account. In most of the other encodes, we couldn’t see this behavior quite as clearly, but the finer the detail, the more likely the problem will be evident.
Tests & Hardware
As mentioned above, most of the tests found here mimic those seen in our previous full Vegas Pro performance looks, but we’ve added three of the new FX tests for good measure. While AI typically accelerates better on GPUs than CPUs, the first go of the Colorize and Style Transfer FX are specific to the CPU. MAGIX told us that it is exploring adding GPU support in the future, and isn’t ignoring the possibility of utilizing NVIDIA Tensor cores.
As for the Black Bar Fill FX, it primarily uses the GPU, so we hope it will scale well. There might have been something we were doing wrong with this filter, but we were unable to take a portrait video and make it widescreen with the help of this blur bar, as you may see on some social media videos. Given that, we’re sticking with a landscape video, as it still uses the GPU the same way.
AMD Radeon Pro and NVIDIA Quadro graphics cards do not have any inherent advantage in Vegas Pro, but we were kind of running on automode, and they just happened to find themselves tested. With 8K becoming a focus in VP, memory would be one of the biggest reasons to go with a top-end GPU.
Here’s the tested hardware:
Techgage Workstation Test Systems | |
Processors | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X (64C/128T; 2.9GHz) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X (32C/64T; 3.7GHz) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X (24C/48T; 3.8GHz) AMD Ryzen 9 3950X (16C/32T; 3.5GHz) AMD Ryzen 9 3900X (12C/24T; 3.8GHz) AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (8C/16C; 3.6GHz) AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (6C/12C; 3.8GHz) AMD Ryzen 3 3300X (4C/8T; 3.8GHz) Intel Core i9-10980XE (18C/36T; 3.0GHz) Intel Core i9-10900K (10C/20T; 3.7GHz) Intel Core i5-10600K (6C/12T; 4.1GHz) |
Motherboards | AMD X399: ASUS ROG Zenith II Extreme Alpha AMD X570: ASRock X570 Taichi Intel Z490: ASUS ROG Maximus XII Hero Wi-Fi Intel X299: ASUS ROG STRIX X299-E GAMING |
Memory | G. SKILL Flare X (F4-3200C14-8GFX) 4x8GB; DDR4-3200 14-14-14 |
Graphics | NVIDIA TITAN RTX (24GB) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (11GB) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (8GB) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (8GB) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (8GB) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (6GB) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (6GB) NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (24GB) NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (8GB) NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (5GB) AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8GB) AMD Radeon VII (16GB) AMD Radeon RX 590 (8GB) AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (8GB) AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (8GB) AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (16GB) AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (8GB) AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (4GB) |
Et cetera | Windows 10 Pro build 19041 (2004) |
Drivers | |
GPU Encode Performance
These straight-forward encodes do not offer really exciting results, since the GPU’s dedicated hardware encoder is more important than its general GPU cores. There have been some clear generational improvements, however, at least seen between the older AMD Polaris-based GPUs (eg: RX 590) and the newer Navi (eg: 5700 XT). AMD’s Navi cards even manage to beat out the Vega-based Radeon VII.
One result above that strikes us as pretty intriguing is the GeForce 1660 Ti. It’s based on Turing like the RTX cards, but it sits behind the Pascal-based Quadro P2200 – which has less VRAM and an older encoder engine. As we’ll see later though, things can switch around when more compute is required beyond just the encoder.
As it has in the past couple of versions, the Radeon VII from AMD manages to rocket to the top of the Median test, proving that while it’s older, the Vega architecture has some serious strengths where you least expect it. The other AMD cards continue to perform great, as the only cards to sit ahead of AMD’s Navi-based cards are NVIDIA’s top dogs (soon augmented with RTX 3080).
Even the LUT test favored AMD quite significantly, with Navi once again soaring to the top, and the Vega-based Radeon VII just behind those. But, just as things were looking so great for AMD, we ran into a hiccup when we added our only new GPU test: Black Bar Fill. Radeon simply doesn’t use the filter correctly (the created bar is completely black), so it had to be dropped from the test. Similarly, the 5GB frame buffer on the P2200 proved to be a major limitation.
Overall, the scaling from the Black Bar Fill isn’t exactly interesting, although it could be once Radeon can use the filter correctly. Of course, no one eyeing VP18 is going to have only this filter in mind, but it does seem safe to say your encode will be sped-up just a bit with a faster NVIDIA GPU. The scaling is pretty boring in comparison to either LUT or Median, though.
On the next page, we’ll take a look at CPU encode and GPU viewport performance.
Support our efforts! With ad revenue at an all-time low for written websites, we’re relying more than ever on reader support to help us continue putting so much effort into this type of content. You can support us by becoming a Patron, or by using our Amazon shopping affiliate links listed through our articles. Thanks for your support!
Comparison and review of video cards. Video Card Performance
Novice users sometimes find it difficult to decide which video card to purchase. The type of memory and its volume, the type of cooling, the graphics processor, the power — it is easy for a beginner to get confused in all these parameters. Our review of video cards will help you navigate and choose exactly the element that is best suited for your needs.
Video card comparison: how to choose the right one?
The peculiarity of video cards is that their reliability can be difficult to assess in the first year of operation. A few years after installation, the video card becomes covered with a layer of dust, and the thermal paste located between the heatsink and the chip inevitably loses some of its properties. Only then will it be possible to trace the presence of the following shortcomings:-
- engineering flaws;
- low-quality components;
- savings on the cooling system.
In this case, the components will have to work without a margin of safety in extreme modes, which will lead to instability of the video card.
Video cards of any manufacturer, like processors, most often fail due to overheating. It is important to ensure high-quality cooling of equipment in a timely manner and regularly clean the radiators from accumulated dust. Powerful overclocked models with a great GPU tend to overheat more than others.
Important things to consider when choosing a video card
If you are planning to buy a powerful gaming device, you need to understand that such a video card cannot be small. Fatal breakdowns of equipment are most often associated with its overheating, so the following elements are a guarantee of uninterrupted and reliable operation:
- high-quality cooler;
- large radiator.
For this reason, it is impossible to assemble a high-priced gaming computer that is powerful, quiet and compact at the same time.
Silent operation of the device
Some customers are attracted by the words «Silent» or «SL» on the packaging of the video card. These designations imply that the device has passive cooling. If you are counting on the equipment to work for a long time, you should not purchase an element with this type of cooling: video card chips can operate at low frequencies to reduce heat, so the performance of such a device is lower than others. Sometimes for elements with passive cooling, those chips are used that could not pass tests in operating modes. In addition, a comparison of video cards with passive and active cooling showed that the former often operate at extreme temperature conditions, which by no means contributes to an increase in service life.
Types of video card
If you see a small video card at a low price, don’t rush to buy it: such devices often have small coolers that run at high speeds and wear out quickly. If you appreciate the reliability of equipment and its quiet operation, it is better to pay attention to equipment with a cooler as large as possible.
There are overclocked models that operate at frequencies much higher than the nominal ones. This allows you to get an increase in productivity by reducing the life of the equipment. In such devices, many components operate in extreme conditions:
- graphic chip;
- power components;
- memory.
If the frequencies are much higher than the standard, it is not recommended to purchase such a technique: it is better to give preference to a new, more powerful, graphics processor at a higher price than to work on an old one that is overclocked. Overclocked graphics cards are like nitrogen-injected racing cars: they will get to the finish line faster, but only a few times, because the mixture will quickly destroy the engine.
Which type and amount of memory should I choose?
Novice users sometimes think that video card performance depends on how much memory it has. It should be understood that this statement is not entirely true: the performance is determined mainly by the video chip, and the video memory only stores all the necessary data. If there is not enough memory, the graphics card will not be able to reach its full potential, but an excess of this memory will not provide tangible benefits.
Tests of various video cards show that 4 GB of video memory is sufficient for Full HD monitors. Having only 2 GB reduces the frame rate slightly or does not affect at all. It is important to understand that only expensive video cards can work at high quality settings. To use cheap models, you need to lower the quality settings.
When choosing the required amount of memory, it is enough to follow the following rule:
- 1-2 GB is enough for budget devices;
- for mid-range equipment — from 2 to 4 GB;
- for powerful gaming video cards — 4-6 GB.
The type of video memory matters only if you are purchasing a budget option. Between the DDR3 and DDR5 types, it is better to give preference to the latter option: a slight overpayment is compensated by high performance.
Choosing between AMD Radeon and NVidia GeForce
There is endless competition between the AMD Radeon and NVidia GeForce brands, from which buyers only benefit: manufacturers are forced to increase the performance of their new devices in order to overtake competitors.
The performance of expensive video cards from NVidia GeForce is higher than that of AMD Radeon. Mid-range GPU benchmarks show how much the balance between performance and price changes. A few years ago, AMD Radeon video cards had higher average power, then GeForce seized the lead.
When choosing a technique, one should not focus too much on a specific manufacturer. It is much more important that the performance-price ratio is as high as possible. The rating of AMD Radeon and NVidia GeForce video cards, which you will find below, will help you familiarize yourself with these indicators for different models and make the right choice.
Comparative rating of AMD Radeon and NVidia GeForce
GeForce
Video card |
Processor performance, Test PassMark G3D Mark |
Rank |
Value for money (performance) video cards |
GeForce GTX 1080 |
12101 |
1 |
21. 23 |
GeForce GTX 1070 |
11183 |
2 |
30.23 |
GeForce GTX 1060 |
8945 |
3 |
35.92 |
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB |
8735 |
4 |
47.22 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti |
6020 |
5 |
46. 31 |
GeForce GTX 750 Ti |
3688 |
6 |
36.88 |
GeForce GT 730 |
926 |
7 |
17.47 |
GeForce 210 |
181 |
8 |
6.24 |
Radeon graphics cards
Video card |
Processor performance, Test PassMark G3D Mark |
Rank |
Value for money (performance) video cards |
Radeon R9 Fury + Fury X |
8314 |
1 |
31. 98 |
Radeon R9 390 |
7482 |
2 |
— |
Radeon R9 380X |
5879 |
3 |
26.72 |
GeForce GTX 580 |
4992 |
4 |
17.22 |
Radeon R7 370 |
4588 |
5 |
— |
Radeon R7 360 |
3176 |
6 |
35. 29 |
We hope that our advice on choosing a video card and the rating of devices from GeForce and Radeon will help you choose the right equipment in terms of cost and characteristics, which will faithfully serve you for many years!
- < back
Comparison of processors and video cards online in real time
Compare laptop processors online for gaming performance
AMD FX-8320 vs Intel Core i5-4258U | 44 sec. back | |
Intel Core i7-1160G7 vs Intel Core i7-7800X | 8 sec. back | |
Intel Core i3-10100F vs AMD Phenom II X2 560 | 44 sec. back | |
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T vs Intel Core i7-1060NG7 | 0 sec. back | |
Intel Core i7-6770HQ vs Intel Xeon E5-2658 v3 | 18 sec. back |
Comparison of video cards for laptops and PCs in terms of performance: which card should you take
NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 vs NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 | 21 sec. back | |
NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs AMD Radeon R9 370 | 4 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs AMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) | 35 sec. back | |
NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB | 1 sec. back | |
NVIDIA RTX A5000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M385X | 22 sec. back |
All processors ✿ Which processor to choose
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | 38 sec. back | |
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X | 33 sec. back | |
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X | 57 sec. back | |
Apple M2 | 56 sec. back | |
Intel Atom x7-E3950 | 2 sec. back | |
Intel Core i7-12700K | 56 sec. back | |
Samsung Exynos 3110 | 48 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8c | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx Gen. 2 | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 427 | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429 | 17 sec. back | |
Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 | 17 sec. back |
All graphics cards with good power and performance: new catalog
ATI Radeon 9500 | 9 sec. back | |
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs | 20 sec. back | |
AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition | 21 sec. back | |
NVIDIA Quadro4 380 XGL | 42 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti | 15 sec. back | |
GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 3070 GAMINGOC | 26 sec. back | |
Intel UHD Graphics 630 | 50 sec. back | |
AMD Radeon RX 580 | 29 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | 9 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | 35 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | 5 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop | 46 sec. back | |
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Max-Q |
59 sec.
|