Arc A750 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
31.95
+0.4%

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking179180
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation46.4657.85
Power efficiency10.509.76
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameVega 10DG2-512
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $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 25% better value for money than Pro Vega 56.

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 cores35843584
Core clock speed1138 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate280.0537.6
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs64112
TMUs224224
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).

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI++

API and SDK 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
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.3
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.

Pro Vega 56 31.95
+0.4%
Arc A750 31.83

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.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+0.4%
Arc A750 12307

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.

Pro Vega 56 25589
Arc A750 37288
+45.7%

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.

Pro Vega 56 17797
Arc A750 29667
+66.7%

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 HD96
−15.6%
111
+15.6%
1440p55−60
−5.5%
58
+5.5%
4K57
+58.3%
36
−58.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16
−59.6%
2.60
+59.6%
1440p7.25
−45.6%
4.98
+45.6%
4K7.00
+14.7%
8.03
−14.7%
  • Arc A750 has 60% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A750 has 46% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 56 has 15% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
−90.7%
164
+90.7%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
−44.4%
91
+44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
−11.9%
75
+11.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
−43%
123
+43%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0.9%
110−120
−0.9%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
−39.7%
88
+39.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1.5%
66
−1.5%
Far Cry 5 95−100
−13.3%
111
+13.3%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+4.5%
112
−4.5%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+1.2%
85−90
−1.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0.5%
180−190
−0.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
−3.5%
89
+3.5%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0.9%
110−120
−0.9%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
−20.6%
76
+20.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+15.5%
58
−15.5%
Dota 2 107
+7%
100−105
−7%
Far Cry 5 95−100
−4.1%
102
+4.1%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+10.4%
106
−10.4%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+1.2%
85−90
−1.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+6.1%
99
−6.1%
Metro Exodus 65−70
−54.4%
105
+54.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
−59.5%
185
+59.5%
Valorant 190−200
+0.5%
180−190
−0.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0.9%
110−120
−0.9%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
−19%
75
+19%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+21.8%
55
−21.8%
Dota 2 102
+2%
100−105
−2%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+30%
90
−30%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+1.2%
85−90
−1.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
−7.8%
69
+7.8%
Valorant 190−200
+0.5%
180−190
−0.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0.5%
200−210
−0.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+39%
41
−39%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−54.8%
65
+54.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0.4%
220−230
−0.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+1.3%
80−85
−1.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−31.3%
42
+31.3%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−8.6%
76
+8.6%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+1.3%
79
−1.3%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
−7.5%
57
+7.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+1.4%
70−75
−1.4%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+31.1%
45
−31.1%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−65.4%
43
+65.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
−64.3%
69
+64.3%
Valorant 180−190
+0.6%
170−180
−0.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−64.3%
23
+64.3%
Dota 2 96
+1.1%
95−100
−1.1%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−25%
45
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−13%
61
+13%
Forza Horizon 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 16% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 5% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 58% faster in 4K

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 39% faster.
  • in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A750 is 91% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 25 tests (39%)
  • Arc A750 is ahead in 22 tests (34%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (27%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.95 31.83
Recency 14 August 2017 12 October 2022
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 225 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 0.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro Vega 56 and Arc A750.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.

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.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 90 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 886 votes

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 56 or Arc A750, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.