Arc A750 vs Quadro P5000

Place in the ranking	176	186
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.68	54.53
Power efficiency	12.45	9.71
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GP104	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,499	$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 716% better value for money than Quadro P5000.

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	2048	3584
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1733 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	277.3	537.6
Floating-point processing power	8.873 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	112
TMUs	160	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	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	16 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	512.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-
Resizable BAR	-	+

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	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	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 and SDK 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	-
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 P5000 28.29
+2.6%

Arc A750 27.57

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 P5000 12643
+2.6%

Arc A750 12322

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	93 −15.1%	107 +15.1%
1440p	60−65 −1.7%	61 +1.7%
4K	41 +13.9%	36 −13.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	26.87 −895%	2.70 +895%
1440p	41.65 −779%	4.74 +779%
4K	60.95 −659%	8.03 +659%

Arc A750 has 895% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Arc A750 has 779% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Arc A750 has 659% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	85−90 −86.4%	164 +86.4%
Counter-Strike 2	170−180 −90.9%	336 +90.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −8.7%	75 +8.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	85−90 −39.8%	123 +39.8%
Battlefield 5	110−120 +0.9%	110−120 −0.9%
Counter-Strike 2	170−180 −53.4%	270 +53.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +4.5%	66 −4.5%
Far Cry 5	100−105 −11%	111 +11%
Fortnite	140−150 +1.4%	130−140 −1.4%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +7.1%	112 −7.1%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 −36.1%	132 +36.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +2.5%	110−120 −2.5%
Valorant	190−200 +1.6%	190−200 −1.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	85−90 −1.1%	89 +1.1%
Battlefield 5	110−120 +0.9%	110−120 −0.9%
Counter-Strike 2	170−180 +22.2%	144 −22.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	270−280 +0.4%	270−280 −0.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +19%	58 −19%
Dota 2	130−140 +3.8%	130−140 −3.8%
Far Cry 5	100−105 −2%	102 +2%
Fortnite	140−150 +1.4%	130−140 −1.4%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +13.2%	106 −13.2%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 −24.7%	121 +24.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +8.1%	99 −8.1%
Metro Exodus	70−75 −50%	105 +50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +2.5%	110−120 −2.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	98 −88.8%	185 +88.8%
Valorant	190−200 +1.6%	190−200 −1.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0.9%	110−120 −0.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +25.5%	55 −25.5%
Dota 2	130−140 +3.8%	130−140 −3.8%
Far Cry 5	100−105 +2%	98 −2%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +33.3%	90 −33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +2.5%	110−120 −2.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	53 −30.2%	69 +30.2%
Valorant	190−200 +1.6%	190−200 −1.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

140−150
+1.4%

130−140

−1.4%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	70−75 −21.9%	89 +21.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	210−220 +2.4%	200−210 −2.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +43.9%	41 −43.9%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −51.2%	65 +51.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	230−240 +1.3%	220−230 −1.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +2.5%	80−85 −2.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −27.3%	42 +27.3%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −5.6%	76 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +5.1%	79 −5.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −5.6%	57 +5.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

75−80
+2.7%

75−80

−2.7%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +70%	20 −70%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +35.6%	45 −35.6%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −59.3%	43 +59.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	36 −91.7%	69 +91.7%
Valorant	180−190 +2.8%	170−180 −2.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +2.1%	45−50 −2.1%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −53.3%	23 +53.3%
Dota 2	90−95 +4.4%	90−95 −4.4%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −18.4%	45 +18.4%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −10.9%	61 +10.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

35−40
+2.9%

35−40

−2.9%

This is how Quadro P5000 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 15% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 2% faster in 1440p
Quadro P5000 is 14% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 70% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A750 is 92% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P5000 is ahead in 35 tests (58%)
Arc A750 is ahead in 23 tests (38%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.29	27.57
Recency	1 October 2016	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt