Depends.

Did you apply to schools with those scores and get rejected from the ones you wanted to go to?  If that is the case, I would first contact those schools and ask to speak with the chair (be VERY nice and professional and tell them you understand their decision) and make it clear that you are STILL very interested in their program and that you would like to know how to better your chances the next time around.  You'd be pleasantly  surprised how how far that conversation can take you.

In my case, my GRE scores were not too far off but I got into the program that I wanted to go to because of such a conversation (I was already rejected).  My GPA was pretty good (around a 3.4), and my folio was pretty average - had some pretty bomb-diggedy paintings.  I was granted 'provisional acceptance' - which was another way to say that you were IN the program/school provided you didn't screw around and keep a 3.0 or above after the first semester.  You're as good as gold, if you get that.

i dont plan on applying to the same schools i sent them to the first time however i did have them sent to programs that i did not apply to that I will apply to this time around. i will call those programs to see what is up. 

i would have to take it in the next couple of weeks, i guess I am also wondering if anyone knows if the GRE is significantly easier now in the new format ?  I feel like unless I can significantly improve my score it's not worth retaking. Also even if I got a higher score would it significantly change my chances of getting in? My undergrad GPA is not very high either, but I have transcripts from my prep school that are straight A+'s, and my portfolio is going to be stellar, also I remember the minimum GRE used to be 1000 and I beat that (lol). has anyone taken it recently and gotten their scores? Is it easy or difficult? 

Easier? That is a weird way to look at it...

Standardized tests are all about percentile. Your score is only valuable based on how others do. If the test is "easier" everyone will do better and you will be in the exact same place as you are now. so... no, it should inherently be the exact same difficulty as the last one you took. 

I think your scores are borderline. They are low enough that if you think you can do significantly better it might be beneficial, but it doesn't sound like you are confident that you could so it might not be worth risking a lower score.

Arch schools don't really look that hard at GRE scores, it's largely your portfolio, and often your letter of intent is pretty important. GRE is more of a "don't do bad and we won't care that much, do great and it might raise an eyebrow."

GPA is probably more concerning, and "not very high" doesn't say much. Was it a 3.0 or a 2.5 huge difference. A lot of arch schools "require" 3.0 to apply, and while that is not typically a hard line number there seems to be an exponential decrease in acceptance the further below that you get. I once heard another comment on here that i think is very true... the gist of it was that a great portfolio can make a school overlook a lot of shortcomings, but typically people with great portfolio's don't have that many shortcomings.

I did my B.Arch in India and in our college the valuation is very tough. The highest GPA is just 2.5 and mine is 2.3. So how can I substantiate myself? Is it okay for my studio instructor to mention regarding the same in the recommendation letter?