Arc A750 vs Quadro K420
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K420 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
A750 outperforms K420 by a whopping 1631% 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 | 974 | 212 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | 53.81 |
| Power efficiency | 3.25 | 10.27 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $96.67 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Arc A750 has 67163% better value for money than Quadro K420.
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 | 192 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 876 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) | 41 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.02 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3364 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 112 |
| TMUs | 16 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 448 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| 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 | 128 Bit | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB/2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 891 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 29 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
| 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 | 6−7
−1683%
| 107
+1683%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−1933%
| 61
+1933%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1700%
| 36
+1700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.11
−497%
| 2.70
+497%
|
| 1440p | 32.22
−580%
| 4.74
+580%
|
| 4K | 48.34
−502%
| 8.03
+502%
|
- Arc A750 has 497% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc A750 has 580% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc A750 has 502% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 336
+0%
|
336
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270
+0%
|
270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 185
+0%
|
185
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+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
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+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 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K420 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 1683% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 1933% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 1700% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.73 | 29.95 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB/2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro K420 has 448.8% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 1631.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K420 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K420 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.
