Arc A750 vs GeForce4 Ti 4200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce4 Ti 4200 and Arc A750, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce4 Ti 4200
2002
64 MB DDR
0.01
Arc A750
2022, $289
8 GB GDDR6, 225 Watt
30.34
+303300%

A750 outperforms Ti 4200 by a whopping 303300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1587210
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data50.37
Power efficiencyno data10.43
ArchitectureKelvin (2001−2003)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameNV25 A2DG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 February 2002 (24 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA coresno data3584
Core clock speed250 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors63 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data225 Watt
Texture fill rate2.000537.6
Floating-point processing powerno data17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs4112
TMUs8224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Coresno data28
L2 Cacheno data16 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 4.0 x16
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount64 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth4 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX8.112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGL1.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GeForce4 Ti 4200 0.01
Arc A750 30.34
+303300%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce4 Ti 4200 5
Samples: 55
Arc A750 12641
+252720%
Samples: 1818

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD-0−1107
1440p-0−160
4K-0−136

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.70
1440pno data4.82
4Kno data8.03

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 336
+0%
336
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%
Palworld 125
+0%
125
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 151
+0%
151
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 111
+0%
111
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 112
+0%
112
+0%
Palworld 112
+0%
112
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 144
+0%
144
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 106
+0%
106
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 99
+0%
99
+0%
Metro Exodus 105
+0%
105
+0%
Palworld 90
+0%
90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 185
+0%
185
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Palworld 82
+0%
82
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 89
+0%
89
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 41
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 65
+0%
65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 79
+0%
79
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Palworld 59
+0%
59
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 45
+0%
45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 61
+0%
61
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Palworld 32
+0%
32
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.01 30.34
Recency 6 February 2002 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 6 nm

Arc A750 has a 303300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 20 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2400% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 Ti 4200 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 64 votes

Rate GeForce4 Ti 4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 1079 votes

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce4 Ti 4200 or Arc A750, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.