Arc A750 vs Quadro P5000
Arc A750
Popular choices:
Quadro P5000
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 Quadro P5000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc A750 is significantly newer (2022 vs 2016). The Arc A750 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro P5000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P5000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (16 GB vs 8 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Arc A750.
| Insight | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) |
| Longevity | 🔮Strong Longevity (Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) / 6nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (268mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Arc A750 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $229 versus $400 for the Quadro P5000, it costs 43% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 72.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+72.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($229) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($400) |
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 Quadro P5000
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.
Quadro P5000
The Quadro P5000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 1 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,728 points. Launch price was $2,499.
Graphics Performance
The Arc A750 scores 12,600 and the Quadro P5000 reaches 12,728 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc A750 is built on Generation 12.7 while the Quadro P5000 uses Pascal, both on 6 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 3,584 (Arc A750) vs 2,048 (Quadro P5000). Raw compute: 17.2 TFLOPS (Arc A750) vs 8.873 TFLOPS (Quadro P5000). Boost clocks: 2400 MHz vs 1733 MHz.
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,600 | 12,728+1% |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 3584+75% | 2048 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 17.2 TFLOPS+94% | 8.873 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz+38% | 1733 MHz |
| ROPs | 112+75% | 64 |
| TMUs | 224+40% | 160 |
| L2 Cache | 16 MB+700% | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Arc A750 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P5000 has 16 GB. The Quadro P5000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 512 GB/s (Arc A750) vs 288 GB/s (Quadro P5000) — a 77.8% advantage for the Arc A750. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 16 MB (Arc A750) vs 2 MB (Quadro P5000) — the Arc A750 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 GB/s+78% | 288 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 16 MB+700% | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Arc A750) vs 12.1 (Quadro P5000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.0. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+30% | 1.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Dual Xe Media Engine (Arc A750) vs 6th Gen NVENC (Quadro P5000). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs 3rd Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,AV1,VP9 (Arc A750) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P5000).
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Dual Xe Media Engine | 6th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | 3rd Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,AV1,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc A750 draws 225W versus the Quadro P5000's 180W — a 22.2% difference. The Quadro P5000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (Arc A750) vs 500W (Quadro P5000). Power connectors: 8-pin + 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 268mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 78°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 180W-20% |
| Recommended PSU | 650W | 500W-23% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin + 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 268mm | 267mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 78°C-3% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 56.0 | 70.7+26% |
Value Analysis
The Arc A750 launched at $289 MSRP and currently averages $229, while the Quadro P5000 launched at $2499 and now averages $400. The Arc A750 costs 42.8% less ($171 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 55.0 (Arc A750) vs 31.8 (Quadro P5000) — the Arc A750 offers 73% better value. The Arc A750 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2016).
| Feature | Arc A750 | Quadro P5000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $289-88% | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $229-43% | $400 |
| Performance per Dollar | 55.0+73% | 31.8 |
| Codename | DG2-512 | GP104 |
| Release | October 12 2022 | October 1 2016 |
| Ranking | #212 | #206 |
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 Quadro P5000
