Arc A750 vs Quadro 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000 Mac Edition Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000 SDI Quadro 6000 Quadro 6000 SDI Tesla C2050 Tesla C2070 Tesla M2050 Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070-Q Tesla S2050
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Arc 7 A770M Arc 7 A780 Arc A580 Arc A750 Arc A770 Arc A780

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.84

Arc A750 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 735% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000
Arc A750 Arc A750

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking716181
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.2058.09
Power efficiency1.859.76
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGF100DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Arc A750 has 28945% better value for money than Quadro 4000.

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 cores2563584
Core clock speed475 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate15.20537.6
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs32112
TMUs32224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.0-
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.

Quadro 4000 3.84
Arc A750 32.05
+735%

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.

Quadro 4000 1475
Arc A750 12317
+735%

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 HD12−14
−825%
111
+825%
1440p6−7
−867%
58
+867%
4K4−5
−800%
36
+800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p99.92
−3738%
2.60
+3738%
1440p199.83
−3910%
4.98
+3910%
4K299.75
−3634%
8.03
+3634%
  • Arc A750 has 3738% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A750 has 3910% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc A750 has 3634% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 164
+0%
164
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 91
+0%
91
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 123
+0%
123
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 111
+0%
111
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 112
+0%
112
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 89
+0%
89
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 76
+0%
76
+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 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 106
+0%
106
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 99
+0%
99
+0%
Metro Exodus 105
+0%
105
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 185
+0%
185
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+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 Preset

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%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14
+0%
14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 45
+0%
45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 61
+0%
61
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how Quadro 4000 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 825% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 867% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A750 is 800% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 3.84 32.05
Recency 2 November 2010 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro 4000 has 58.5% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 734.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000
vs
FirePro W4100 FirePro W4100
Arc A750 Arc A750
vs
RX 5600 OEM Radeon RX 5600 OEM
Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000
vs
ATI V5800 FirePro V5800
RTX 4070 RTX 4070
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RTX 4080 RTX 4080
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RTX 4090 RTX 4090
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RTX A1000 Mobile RTX A1000 Mobile
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RTX 4060 Ti RTX 4060 Ti
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RTX 4070 Ti RTX 4070 Ti
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RX 7600S RX 7600S
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
vs
Quadro 4000 4000
FirePro 2270 2270
vs
FX 380 LP FX 380 LP
ATI 2260 PCI 2260 PCI
vs
FX 380 LP FX 380 LP

Community ratings

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

3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 891 vote

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 4000 or Arc A750, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.