Arc A750 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
Arc A750 outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 564% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 650 | 180 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.66 | 57.38 |
| Power efficiency | 9.45 | 9.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $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 1468% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.
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 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 112 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 16−18
−594%
| 111
+594%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−625%
| 58
+625%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−620%
| 36
+620%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.31
−258%
| 2.60
+258%
|
| 1440p | 18.63
−274%
| 4.98
+274%
|
| 4K | 29.80
−271%
| 8.03
+271%
|
- Arc A750 has 258% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc A750 has 274% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc A750 has 271% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−1391%
|
164
+1391%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−727%
|
91
+727%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−733%
|
75
+733%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−1018%
|
123
+1018%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−517%
|
110−120
+517%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−700%
|
88
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−633%
|
66
+633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−825%
|
111
+825%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−431%
|
130−140
+431%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−433%
|
112
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−760%
|
85−90
+760%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−561%
|
110−120
+561%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−228%
|
190−200
+228%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−709%
|
89
+709%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−517%
|
110−120
+517%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−591%
|
76
+591%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
−247%
|
270−280
+247%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−544%
|
58
+544%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−541%
|
250−260
+541%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−750%
|
102
+750%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−431%
|
130−140
+431%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−405%
|
106
+405%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−760%
|
85−90
+760%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−560%
|
99
+560%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−1213%
|
105
+1213%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−561%
|
110−120
+561%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−1323%
|
185
+1323%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−228%
|
190−200
+228%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−517%
|
110−120
+517%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−582%
|
75
+582%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−511%
|
55
+511%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−541%
|
250−260
+541%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−717%
|
98
+717%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−329%
|
90
+329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−760%
|
85−90
+760%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−561%
|
110−120
+561%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−431%
|
69
+431%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−228%
|
190−200
+228%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−431%
|
130−140
+431%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−333%
|
24−27
+333%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−720%
|
41
+720%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2067%
|
65
+2067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−447%
|
170−180
+447%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−354%
|
220−230
+354%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−850%
|
76
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−618%
|
79
+618%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−714%
|
57
+714%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−733%
|
75−80
+733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−181%
|
45
+181%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 69 |
| Valorant | 21−24
−678%
|
170−180
+678%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−4500%
|
45−50
+4500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−533%
|
95−100
+533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−800%
|
45
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−917%
|
61
+917%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
This is how PRO WX 2100 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 594% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 625% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 620% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A750 is 4500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A750 is ahead in 60 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.71 | 31.27 |
| Recency | 4 June 2017 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 225 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has 542.9% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 563.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 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 Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 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.
