Arc A750 vs Titan X Pascal

Place in the ranking	162	180
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.95	57.94
Power efficiency	9.29	9.75
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GP102	DG2-512
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	2 August 2016 (8 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,199	$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 734% better value for money than Titan X Pascal.

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	3584	3584
Core clock speed	1417 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1531 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	11,800 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	342.9	537.6
Floating-point processing power	10.97 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	112
TMUs	224	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 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	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	GDDR5X	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1251 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	480.4 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	+	+
G-SYNC support	+	-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D 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	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	+	-
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.

Titan X Pascal 33.81
+5.9%

Arc A750 31.94

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.

Titan X Pascal 13026
+5.9%

Arc A750 12305

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.

Titan X Pascal 35981

Arc A750 37288
+3.6%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Titan X Pascal 100948
+2.1%

Arc A750 98837

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.

Titan X Pascal 27349

Arc A750 29667
+8.5%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Titan X Pascal 136891
+4.7%

Arc A750 130715

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Titan X Pascal 514513

Arc A750 634482
+23.3%

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	128 +15.3%	111 −15.3%
1440p	76 +31%	58 −31%
4K	59 +63.9%	36 −63.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.37 −260%	2.60 +260%
1440p	15.78 −217%	4.98 +217%
4K	20.32 −153%	8.03 +153%

Arc A750 has 260% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Arc A750 has 217% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Arc A750 has 153% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	173 +5.5%	164 −5.5%
Counter-Strike 2	92 +1.1%	91 −1.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	83 +10.7%	75 −10.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	127 +3.3%	123 −3.3%
Battlefield 5	153 +37.8%	110−120 −37.8%
Counter-Strike 2	74 −18.9%	88 +18.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	74 +12.1%	66 −12.1%
Far Cry 5	162 +45.9%	111 −45.9%
Fortnite	210 +52.2%	130−140 −52.2%
Forza Horizon 4	127 +13.4%	112 −13.4%
Forza Horizon 5	124 +42.5%	85−90 −42.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	113 −5.3%	110−120 +5.3%
Valorant	296 +55.8%	190−200 −55.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	78 −14.1%	89 +14.1%
Battlefield 5	147 +32.4%	110−120 −32.4%
Counter-Strike 2	63 −20.6%	76 +20.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	270−280 +0.7%	270−280 −0.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65 +12.1%	58 −12.1%
Dota 2	252 +9.6%	230−240 −9.6%
Far Cry 5	149 +46.1%	102 −46.1%
Fortnite	199 +44.2%	130−140 −44.2%
Forza Horizon 4	121 +14.2%	106 −14.2%
Forza Horizon 5	113 +29.9%	85−90 −29.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	160 +61.6%	99 −61.6%
Metro Exodus	96 −9.4%	105 +9.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	113 −5.3%	110−120 +5.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	184 −0.5%	185 +0.5%
Valorant	275 +44.7%	190−200 −44.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	137 +23.4%	110−120 −23.4%
Counter-Strike 2	55 −36.4%	75 +36.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	57 +3.6%	55 −3.6%
Dota 2	232 +10.5%	210−220 −10.5%
Far Cry 5	140 +42.9%	98 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	112 +24.4%	90 −24.4%
Forza Horizon 5	97 +11.5%	85−90 −11.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	102 −16.7%	110−120 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95 +37.7%	69 −37.7%
Valorant	181 −5%	190−200 +5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

170
+23.2%

130−140

−23.2%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +3.8%	24−27 −3.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	210−220 +5.3%	200−210 −5.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	103 +151%	41 −151%
Metro Exodus	58 −12.1%	65 +12.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	258 +13.7%	220−230 −13.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +5%	80−85 −5%
Cyberpunk 2077	37 −13.5%	42 +13.5%
Far Cry 5	101 +32.9%	76 −32.9%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +8.9%	79 −8.9%
Forza Horizon 5	72 +35.8%	50−55 −35.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −1.8%	57 +1.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

80−85
+6.7%

75−80

−6.7%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	99 +120%	45 −120%
Metro Exodus	36 −19.4%	43 +19.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	68 −1.5%	69 +1.5%
Valorant	257 +43.6%	170−180 −43.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	71 +51.1%	45−50 −51.1%
Counter-Strike 2	8 −75%	14 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 −35.3%	23 +35.3%
Dota 2	160 +6.7%	150−160 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	53 +17.8%	45 −17.8%
Forza Horizon 4	73 +19.7%	61 −19.7%
Forza Horizon 5	45 +50%	30−33 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	44 +25.7%	35−40 −25.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

60
+71.4%

35−40

−71.4%

This is how Titan X Pascal and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Titan X Pascal is 15% faster in 1080p
Titan X Pascal is 31% faster in 1440p
Titan X Pascal is 64% 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 Titan X Pascal is 151% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A750 is 75% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Titan X Pascal is ahead in 46 tests (72%)
Arc A750 is ahead in 17 tests (27%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.81	31.94
Recency	2 August 2016	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	225 Watt