Arc A750 vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
Arc A750 outperforms P4000 Mobile by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 269 | 178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.10 | 57.09 |
| Power efficiency | 14.28 | 9.72 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Arc A750 has 605% better value for money than P4000 Mobile.
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 | 1792 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 112 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 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 | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 70−75
−55.7%
| 109
+55.7%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−68.6%
| 59
+68.6%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−71.4%
| 36
+71.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.71
−342%
| 2.65
+342%
|
| 1440p | 23.42
−378%
| 4.90
+378%
|
| 4K | 39.03
−386%
| 8.03
+386%
|
- Arc A750 has 342% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc A750 has 378% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc A750 has 386% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 285
+0%
|
285
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 239
+0%
|
239
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how P4000 Mobile and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 56% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 69% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 71% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.69 | 31.71 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 12 October 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has 125% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 53.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
