Arc A750 vs Quadro P520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P520 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P520
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 18 Watt
5.43

Arc A750 outperforms P520 by a whopping 478% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking612177
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data56.31
Power efficiency20.689.57
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGP108DG2-512
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date23 May 2019 (5 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores3843584
Core clock speed1303 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speed1493 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate35.83537.6
Floating-point processing power1.147 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs16112
TMUs24224
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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth48.06 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.1-

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.

Quadro P520 5.43
Arc A750 31.41
+478%

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 P520 2092
Arc A750 12102
+478%

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.

Quadro P520 4186
Arc A750 37288
+791%

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.

Quadro P520 15720
Arc A750 98837
+529%

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.

Quadro P520 3218
Arc A750 29667
+822%

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.

Quadro P520 19041
Arc A750 130715
+586%

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.

Quadro P520 141330
Arc A750 634482
+349%

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 HD21
−414%
108
+414%
1440p10−12
−480%
58
+480%
4K23
−52.2%
35
+52.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.68
1440pno data4.98
4Kno data8.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−343%
62
+343%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−1400%
90
+1400%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−907%
140−150
+907%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−633%
85−90
+633%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−667%
90−95
+667%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−620%
100−110
+620%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−477%
200−210
+477%
Hitman 3 10−12
−755%
90−95
+755%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−424%
170−180
+424%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−1008%
144
+1008%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−560%
95−100
+560%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−768%
160−170
+768%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−181%
130−140
+181%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−657%
106
+657%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−1167%
76
+1167%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−907%
140−150
+907%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−633%
85−90
+633%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−667%
90−95
+667%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−620%
100−110
+620%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−477%
200−210
+477%
Hitman 3 10−12
−755%
90−95
+755%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−424%
170−180
+424%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−1000%
143
+1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−560%
95−100
+560%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−1158%
239
+1158%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−406%
90−95
+406%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−181%
130−140
+181%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−221%
45
+221%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−1050%
69
+1050%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−633%
85−90
+633%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−667%
90−95
+667%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−157%
90
+157%
Hitman 3 10−12
−755%
90−95
+755%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−232%
113
+232%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−947%
199
+947%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−527%
69
+527%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−31.3%
63
+31.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−560%
95−100
+560%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−760%
85−90
+760%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−738%
65−70
+738%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−660%
38
+660%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 54
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−750%
50−55
+750%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1607%
230−240
+1607%
Hitman 3 9−10
−544%
55−60
+544%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−667%
92
+667%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−2767%
86
+2767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1325%
57
+1325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−500%
200−210
+500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−660%
75−80
+660%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−1025%
45−50
+1025%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−850%
35−40
+850%
Hitman 3 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1840%
190−200
+1840%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−3900%
80
+3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−6800%
69
+6800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−833%
28
+833%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1350%
27−30
+1350%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1120%
61
+1120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 145
+0%
145
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 84
+0%
84
+0%

This is how Quadro P520 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 414% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 480% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A750 is 52% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A750 is 6800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is ahead in 63 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.43 31.41
Recency 23 May 2019 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro P520 has 1150% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 478.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P520 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.

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 P520
Quadro P520
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.4 104 votes

Rate Quadro P520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 852 votes

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.