Arc A370M vs Radeon HD 7750

Place in the ranking	675	386
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.28	no data
Power efficiency	5.50	26.23
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	DG2-128
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	15 February 2012 (12 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	no data

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 cores	512	1024
Core clock speed	no data	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	1550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	99.20
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	3.174 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.1 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	112.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-

API compatibility

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

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

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.

HD 7750 4.39

Arc A370M 13.31
+203%

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.

HD 7750 1689

Arc A370M 5115
+203%

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.

HD 7750 2240

Arc A370M 8149
+264%

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	12−14 −217%	38 +217%
1440p	6−7 −250%	21 +250%
4K	12−14 −233%	40 +233%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.08	no data
1440p	18.17	no data
4K	9.08	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	46 +0%	46 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	74 +0%	74 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +0%	13 +0%
Dota 2	42 +0%	42 +0%
Far Cry 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Fortnite	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	62 +0%	62 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	29 +0%	29 +0%
Metro Exodus	13 +0%	13 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
World of Tanks	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Dota 2	66 +0%	66 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +0%	53 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	11 +0%	11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 +0%	11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +0%	37 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Fortnite	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how HD 7750 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

Arc A370M is 217% faster in 1080p
Arc A370M is 250% faster in 1440p
Arc A370M is 233% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.39	13.31
Recency	15 February 2012	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	35 Watt

Arc A370M has a 203.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7750 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7750 is a desktop card while Arc A370M is a notebook one.

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