Arc A750 vs Radeon Pro V620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro V620 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

Pro V620
2021
32 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
63.65
+110%

Pro V620 outperforms A750 by a whopping 110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking37210
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data50.37
Power efficiency16.4110.43
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameNavi 21DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 November 2021 (4 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 cores46083584
Core clock speed1825 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speed2200 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors26,800 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate633.6537.6
Floating-point processing power20.28 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs128112
TMUs288224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Cores7228
L0 Cache1.1 MBno data
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MB16 MB
L3 Cache128 MBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x 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.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.21.3
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.

Pro V620 63.65
+110%
Arc A750 30.34

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.

Pro V620 26519
+110%
Samples: 3
Arc A750 12642
Samples: 1817

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 HD220−230
+106%
107
−106%
1440p120−130
+100%
60
−100%
4K75−80
+108%
36
−108%

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%

This is how Pro V620 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Pro V620 is 106% faster in 1080p
  • Pro V620 is 100% faster in 1440p
  • Pro V620 is 108% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 63.65 30.34
Recency 4 November 2021 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 225 Watt

Pro V620 has a 110% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, a 17% more advanced lithography process, and 33% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro V620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A750 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro V620 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.

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.


5 3 votes

Rate Radeon Pro V620 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 Radeon Pro V620 or Arc A750, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.