Arc A750 vs Radeon RX 6650M XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6650M XT with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
6650M XT outperforms A750 by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 113 | 212 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 53.51 |
| Power efficiency | 26.14 | 10.28 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 2068 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2416 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 309.2 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.896 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 112 |
| TMUs | 128 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 448 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 28 |
| L0 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 16 MB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 140−150
+30.8%
| 107
−30.8%
|
| 1440p | 80−85
+33.3%
| 60
−33.3%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+25%
| 36
−25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.70 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.82 |
| 4K | no data | 8.03 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
−49.3%
|
336
+49.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+29.3%
|
75
−29.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+20.2%
|
110−120
−20.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
−20%
|
270
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+47%
|
66
−47%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+10%
|
110−120
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+18%
|
111
−18%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+26.4%
|
140−150
−26.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+41.1%
|
112
−41.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
−1.5%
|
132
+1.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+30.3%
|
120−130
−30.3%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+22.3%
|
190−200
−22.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+20.2%
|
110−120
−20.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+56.3%
|
144
−56.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1.1%
|
270−280
−1.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+67.2%
|
58
−67.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+46%
|
100−105
−46%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+10%
|
110−120
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+28.4%
|
102
−28.4%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+26.4%
|
140−150
−26.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+49.1%
|
106
−49.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+7.4%
|
121
−7.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
+35.4%
|
99
−35.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
−6.1%
|
105
+6.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+30.3%
|
120−130
−30.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
−23.3%
|
185
+23.3%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+22.3%
|
190−200
−22.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+20.2%
|
110−120
−20.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+76.4%
|
55
−76.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+46%
|
100−105
−46%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+10%
|
110−120
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+33.7%
|
98
−33.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+75.6%
|
90
−75.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+30.3%
|
120−130
−30.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+117%
|
69
−117%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+22.3%
|
190−200
−22.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180
+26.4%
|
140−150
−26.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+19.1%
|
89
−19.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 290−300
+35.5%
|
210−220
−35.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+110%
|
41
−110%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
−6.6%
|
65
+6.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+16.6%
|
220−230
−16.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+26.8%
|
80−85
−26.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+16.7%
|
42
−16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 95−100
+36.1%
|
70−75
−36.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+31.6%
|
76
−31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+50.6%
|
79
−50.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+40.4%
|
57
−40.4%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+42.9%
|
75−80
−42.9%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+140%
|
20
−140%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90−95
+102%
|
45
−102%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−13.2%
|
43
+13.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
−4.5%
|
69
+4.5%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+35.1%
|
180−190
−35.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+37.5%
|
45−50
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+45.5%
|
30−35
−45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
23
+4.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+43.8%
|
80−85
−43.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+31.1%
|
61
−31.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+61.1%
|
35−40
−61.1%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
This is how RX 6650M XT and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- RX 6650M XT is 31% faster in 1080p
- RX 6650M XT is 33% faster in 1440p
- RX 6650M XT is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6650M XT is 140% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A750 is 49% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6650M XT performs better in 51 tests (84%)
- Arc A750 performs better in 9 tests (15%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.29 | 29.72 |
| Recency | 4 January 2022 | 12 October 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 225 Watt |
RX 6650M XT has a 35.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 87.5% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6650M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A750 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6650M XT is a notebook 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.
