Arc A750 vs GeForce GTS 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250 and Arc A750, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A750 outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 2728% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 929 | 73 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 21.73 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.7 (2022) |
| GPU code name | G92B | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $289 |
| Current price | $131 (0.7x MSRP) | $625 (2.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Arc A750 has 43360% better value for money than GTS 250.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 3584 |
| CUDA cores | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 47.2 billion/sec | 537.6 |
| Floating-point performance | 387.1 gflops | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 9" (228.6 mm) (22.9 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | 16000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Arc A750 outperforms GeForce GTS 250 by 2728% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Arc A750 outperforms GeForce GTS 250 by 1899% in Passmark.
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 | 3−4
−3300%
| 102
+3300%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−2950%
| 61
+2950%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3600%
| 37
+3600%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−2900%
|
90
+2900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2833%
|
85−90
+2833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−3467%
|
100−110
+3467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3633%
|
112
+3633%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−2900%
|
90−95
+2900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−3150%
|
195
+3150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−2780%
|
144
+2780%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−3300%
|
100−110
+3300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−2750%
|
285
+2750%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−3100%
|
96
+3100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−5400%
|
55
+5400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−3700%
|
76
+3700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2833%
|
85−90
+2833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−3467%
|
100−110
+3467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3100%
|
160−170
+3100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−2900%
|
90−95
+2900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−2883%
|
170−180
+2883%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−3075%
|
127
+3075%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−3300%
|
100−110
+3300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−2888%
|
239
+2888%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2983%
|
185
+2983%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−3367%
|
100−110
+3367%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−4400%
|
45
+4400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−3350%
|
69
+3350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2833%
|
85−90
+2833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2900%
|
90
+2900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−3667%
|
113
+3667%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−2743%
|
199
+2743%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3350%
|
69
+3350%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−3050%
|
63
+3050%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−3300%
|
100−110
+3300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2767%
|
85−90
+2767%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−3100%
|
128
+3100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3700%
|
38
+3700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−5300%
|
54
+5300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−3300%
|
65−70
+3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3700%
|
76
+3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3850%
|
79
+3850%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−2800%
|
55−60
+2800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−2967%
|
92
+2967%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2767%
|
86
+2767%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−2800%
|
145
+2800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2750%
|
57
+2750%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−4900%
|
50
+4900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3700%
|
75−80
+3700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−3700%
|
35−40
+3700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−2750%
|
55−60
+2750%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3350%
|
69
+3350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 28 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2950%
|
61
+2950%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−2800%
|
58
+2800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−5100%
|
52
+5100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
This is how GTS 250 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 3300% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 2950% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 3600% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.55 | 43.84 |
| Recency | 4 March 2009 | 12 October 2022 |
| Cost | $199 | $289 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
