Arc A750 vs Quadro K1000M

Place in the ranking	890	177
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.49	56.31
Power efficiency	3.08	9.57
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GK107	DG2-512
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$119.90	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 11392% better value for money than K1000M.

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	192	3584
Core clock speed	850 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	537.6
Floating-point processing power	0.3264 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	112
TMUs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	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	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	-	-

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	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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. 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.

K1000M 2.02

Arc A750 31.41
+1455%

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.

K1000M 777

Arc A750 12102
+1458%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

K1000M 1102

Arc A750 37288
+3284%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K1000M 5165

Arc A750 98837
+1814%

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:

900p	9 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Full HD	16 −575%	108 +575%
1440p	3−4 −1833%	58 +1833%
4K	2−3 −1650%	35 +1650%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.49	2.68
1440p	39.97	4.98
4K	59.95	8.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−1400%

60−65
+1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −786%	62 +786%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −14000%	140−150 +14000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1660%	85−90 +1660%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2967%	90−95 +2967%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −2060%	100−110 +2060%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −2425%	200−210 +2425%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1243%	90−95 +1243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −889%	170−180 +889%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2375%	95−100 +2375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −1550%	160−170 +1550%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −286%	130−140 +286%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −1414%	106 +1414%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −14000%	140−150 +14000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1660%	85−90 +1660%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2967%	90−95 +2967%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −2060%	100−110 +2060%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −2425%	200−210 +2425%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1243%	90−95 +1243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −889%	170−180 +889%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2375%	95−100 +2375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −2290%	239 +2290%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −658%	90−95 +658%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −286%	130−140 +286%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −543%	45 +543%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1660%	85−90 +1660%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2967%	90−95 +2967%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1025%	90 +1025%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1243%	90−95 +1243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −528%	113 +528%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −1890%	199 +1890%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −475%	69 +475%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −80%	63 +80%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−2375%

95−100
+2375%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −2767%	85−90 +2767%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −2133%	65−70 +2133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1800%	38 +1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −5100%	50−55 +5100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2450%	50−55 +2450%
Hitman 3	7−8 −729%	55−60 +729%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −1433%	92 +1433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −5600%	57 +5600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −1755%	200−210 +1755%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−1420%

75−80
+1420%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−3700%

35−40
+3700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1300%	28 +1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2900%	30 +2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	27−30
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2500%	24−27 +2500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	30

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1233%

40−45
+1233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	90 +0%	90 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	76 +0%	76 +0%
Metro Exodus	143 +0%	143 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	54 +0%	54 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Metro Exodus	86 +0%	86 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	145 +0%	145 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Metro Exodus	80 +0%	80 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	69 +0%	69 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	61 +0%	61 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	84 +0%	84 +0%

This is how K1000M and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 1344% faster in 900p
Arc A750 is 575% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 1833% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 1650% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A750 is 14000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A750 is ahead in 48 tests (75%)
there's a draw in 16 tests (25%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.02	31.41
Recency	1 June 2012	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	225 Watt

K1000M has 400% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 1455% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 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 Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.