Arc A750 vs FirePro W2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W2100 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
Arc A750 outperforms W2100 by a whopping 1292% 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 | 891 | 208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 53.10 |
| Power efficiency | 6.30 | 10.13 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Oland | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 630 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 680 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4352 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 112 |
| TMUs | 20 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 448 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 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 | 2x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 | 12
−792%
| 107
+792%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−1425%
| 61
+1425%
|
| 4K | 2
−1700%
| 36
+1700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.70 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.74 |
| 4K | no data | 8.03 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−6620%
|
336
+6620%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75
+1775%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1783%
|
110−120
+1783%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−5300%
|
270
+5300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1550%
|
66
+1550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1750%
|
111
+1750%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1290%
|
130−140
+1290%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−918%
|
112
+918%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−3200%
|
132
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−917%
|
120−130
+917%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−380%
|
190−200
+380%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1783%
|
110−120
+1783%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−2780%
|
144
+2780%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−525%
|
270−280
+525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1350%
|
58
+1350%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1204%
|
300−310
+1204%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1600%
|
102
+1600%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1290%
|
130−140
+1290%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−864%
|
106
+864%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−2925%
|
121
+2925%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−1880%
|
99
+1880%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2525%
|
105
+2525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−917%
|
120−130
+917%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2213%
|
185
+2213%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−380%
|
190−200
+380%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1783%
|
110−120
+1783%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55
+1275%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1204%
|
300−310
+1204%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1533%
|
98
+1533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−718%
|
90
+718%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−917%
|
120−130
+917%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−763%
|
69
+763%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−380%
|
190−200
+380%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1290%
|
130−140
+1290%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1680%
|
89
+1680%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1313%
|
210−220
+1313%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 41 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−733%
|
170−180
+733%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1247%
|
220−230
+1247%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2433%
|
76
+2433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1480%
|
79
+1480%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2750%
|
57
+2750%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1800%
|
75−80
+1800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−1564%
|
180−190
+1564%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45
+4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−6000%
|
61
+6000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1100%
|
35−40
+1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1100%
|
35−40
+1100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W2100 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 792% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 1425% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A750 is 6620% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A750 is ahead in 47 tests (77%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.15 | 29.93 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 225 Watt |
FirePro W2100 has 765.4% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 1292.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W2100 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.
