Arc A750 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

Place in performance ranking	146	73
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.14	21.74
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022)
GPU code name	Vega 10	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	27 June 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$289
Current price	$6074	$625 (2.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 916% better value for money than Pro Vega 64.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	4096	3584
Core clock speed	1250 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	345.6	537.6
Floating-point performance	11,059 gflops	no data

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	IGP	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	HBM2	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1572 MHz	16000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	512.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Pro Vega 64 33.53

Arc A750 43.83
+30.7%

Arc A750 outperforms Radeon Pro Vega 64 by 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro Vega 64 12949
+8.3%

Arc A750 11954

Radeon Pro Vega 64 outperforms Arc A750 by 8% in Passmark.

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	75−80 −36%	102 +36%
1440p	45−50 −35.6%	61 +35.6%
4K	27−30 −37%	37 +37%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −37.8%	62 +37.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	65−70 −38.5%	90 +38.5%
Battlefield 5	100−105 −40%	140−150 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 −35.4%	85−90 +35.4%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −31.4%	90−95 +31.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 −33.8%	100−110 +33.8%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −31.8%	112 +31.8%
Hitman 3	65−70 −38.5%	90−95 +38.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 −39.3%	195 +39.3%
Metro Exodus	110−120 −30.9%	144 +30.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 −36%	100−110 +36%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	210−220 −35.7%	285 +35.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −37.1%	96 +37.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −37.5%	55 +37.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 −38.2%	76 +38.2%
Battlefield 5	100−105 −40%	140−150 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 −35.4%	85−90 +35.4%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −31.4%	90−95 +31.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 −33.8%	100−110 +33.8%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −33.3%	160−170 +33.3%
Hitman 3	65−70 −38.5%	90−95 +38.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 −37.7%	170−180 +37.7%
Metro Exodus	95−100 −33.7%	127 +33.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 −36%	100−110 +36%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	180−190 −32.8%	239 +32.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	140−150 −32.1%	185 +32.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 −38.7%	100−110 +38.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 −50%	45 +50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 −38%	69 +38%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 −35.4%	85−90 +35.4%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −31.4%	90−95 +31.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −38.5%	90 +38.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 −32.9%	113 +32.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160 −32.7%	199 +32.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −38%	69 +38%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −40%	63 +40%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80
−36%

100−110

+36%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −32.3%	85−90 +32.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	95−100 −34.7%	128 +34.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −40.7%	38 +40.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 −35%	54 +35%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 −36%	65−70 +36%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −38.2%	76 +38.2%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −31.7%	79 +31.7%
Hitman 3	40−45 −45%	55−60 +45%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 −31.4%	92 +31.4%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −32.3%	86 +32.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 −31.8%	145 +31.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −42.5%	57 +42.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −42.9%	50 +42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60

−38.2%

75−80
+38.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 −40.7%	35−40 +40.7%
Hitman 3	27−30 −33.3%	35−40 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −42.5%	55−60 +42.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −46.7%	44 +46.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −38%	69 +38%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −33.3%	28 +33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −42.9%	30 +42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −38.1%	27−30 +38.1%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −44.4%	24−27 +44.4%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −35.6%	61 +35.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −45%	58 +45%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −48.6%	52 +48.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 −42.9%	30 +42.9%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33

−33.3%

40−45
+33.3%

This is how Pro Vega 64 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 36% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 36% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 37% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.53	43.83
Recency	27 June 2017	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	225 Watt