CPU
GPU
Arc A750
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc A750
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Arc A750 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🔮Strong Longevity (Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) / 6nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (268mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $85 versus $229 for the Arc A750, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 172.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+172.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($229) | ✅More affordable ($85) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Arc A750 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Arc A750
The Arc A750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in October 12 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2050 MHz to 2400 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,600 points. Launch price was $289.
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 22 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 120W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,747 points. Launch price was $279.
Graphics Performance
The Arc A750 scores 12,600 and the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti reaches 12,747 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc A750 is built on Generation 12.7 while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 3,584 (Arc A750) vs 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti). Raw compute: 17.2 TFLOPS (Arc A750) vs 5.437 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti). Boost clocks: 2400 MHz vs 1770 MHz.
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,600 | 12,747+1% |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Turing |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 3584+133% | 1536 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 17.2 TFLOPS+216% | 5.437 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz+36% | 1770 MHz |
| ROPs | 112+133% | 48 |
| TMUs | 224+133% | 96 |
| L2 Cache | 16 MB+967% | 1.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Arc A750 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti has 6 GB. The Arc A750 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 512 GB/s (Arc A750) vs 288 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti) — a 77.8% advantage for the Arc A750. Bus width: 256-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 16 MB (Arc A750) vs 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti) — the Arc A750 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+33% | 6 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 GB/s+78% | 288 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+33% | 192-bit |
| L2 Cache | 16 MB+967% | 1.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Arc A750) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Dual Xe Media Engine (Arc A750) vs NVENC 7th gen (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,AV1,VP9 (Arc A750) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti).
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Dual Xe Media Engine | NVENC 7th gen |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,AV1,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc A750 draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti's 120W — a 60.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (Arc A750) vs 450W (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti). Power connectors: 8-pin + 6-pin vs 8-pin. Card length: 268mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 78°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 120W-47% |
| Recommended PSU | 650W | 450W-31% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin + 6-pin | 8-pin |
| Length | 268mm | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 78°C | 75°C-4% |
| Perf/Watt | 56.0 | 106.2+90% |
Value Analysis
The Arc A750 launched at $289 MSRP and currently averages $229, while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti launched at $279 and now averages $85. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti costs 62.9% less ($144 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 55.0 (Arc A750) vs 150.0 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti offers 172.7% better value. The Arc A750 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | Arc A750 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $289 | $279-3% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $229 | $85-63% |
| Performance per Dollar | 55.0 | 150.0+173% |
| Codename | DG2-512 | TU116 |
| Release | October 12 2022 | February 22 2019 |
| Ranking | #212 | #204 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc A750 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
