Arc A750 vs UHD Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
A750 outperforms Graphics by a whopping 488% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 690 | 215 |
| Place by popularity | 4 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 49.35 |
| Power efficiency | 40.01 | 10.46 |
| Architecture | Generation 11.0 (2019−2021) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Jasper Lake GT1 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2021 (5 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 256 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 750 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm+ | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 112 |
| TMUs | 16 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 448 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 16 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x 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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 18−20
−83.2%
| 107 |
| 1440p | 10−12 | 60
+500%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−83.3%
| 36 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.70 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.82 |
| 4K | no data | 8.03 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 336 | 336 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75 | 75 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 151 | 151 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270 | 270 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 | 66 |
| Far Cry 5 | 111 | 111 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112 | 112 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 144 | 144 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58 | 58 |
| Far Cry 5 | 102 | 102 |
| Far Cry 6 | 107 | 107 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106 | 106 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99 | 99 |
| Metro Exodus | 105 | 105 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 185 | 185 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55 | 55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 98 | 98 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90 | 90 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69 | 69 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 89 | 89 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Far Cry 6 | 71 | 71 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41 | 41 |
| Metro Exodus | 65 | 65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 220−230 | 220−230 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 42 | 42 |
| Far Cry 5 | 76 | 76 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79 | 79 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57 | 57 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20 | 20 |
| Far Cry 6 | 42 | 42 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45 | 45 |
| Metro Exodus | 43 | 43 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69 | 69 |
| Valorant | 180−190 | 180−190 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23 | 23 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45 | 45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61 | 61 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
This is how UHD Graphics and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 494% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 500% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 500% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.14 | 30.24 |
| Recency | 11 January 2021 | 12 October 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 225 Watt |
UHD Graphics has 96% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 488% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics is a notebook 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.
