Quadro P5000 vs Arc A750
Quadro P5000
Popular choices:
Arc A750
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 Quadro P5000
Performance Per Dollar Arc A750
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 | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) / 6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (268mm) |
💎 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 | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+72.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($400) | ✅More affordable ($229) |
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 Quadro P5000 and Arc A750
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P5000 scores 12,728 and the Arc A750 reaches 12,600 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P5000 is built on Pascal while the Arc A750 uses Generation 12.7, both on 16 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (Quadro P5000) vs 3,584 (Arc A750). Raw compute: 8.873 TFLOPS (Quadro P5000) vs 17.2 TFLOPS (Arc A750). Boost clocks: 1733 MHz vs 2400 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,728+1% | 12,600 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048 | 3584+75% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.873 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS+94% |
| Boost Clock | 1733 MHz | 2400 MHz+38% |
| ROPs | 64 | 112+75% |
| TMUs | 160 | 224+40% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 16 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro P5000 comes with 16 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A750 has 8 GB. The Quadro P5000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 288 GB/s (Quadro P5000) vs 512 GB/s (Arc A750) — a 77.8% advantage for the Arc A750. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro P5000) vs 16 MB (Arc A750) — the Arc A750 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 512 GB/s+78% |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 16 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro P5000) vs 12 Ultimate (Arc A750). Vulkan: 1.0 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.3+30% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 6th Gen NVENC (Quadro P5000) vs Dual Xe Media Engine (Arc A750). Decoder: 3rd Gen NVDEC vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P5000) vs H.264,HEVC,AV1,VP9 (Arc A750).
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 6th Gen NVENC | Dual Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | 3rd Gen NVDEC | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,HEVC,AV1,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P5000 draws 180W versus the Arc A750's 225W — a 22.2% difference. The Quadro P5000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro P5000) vs 650W (Arc A750). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin + 6-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 268mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 78°C.
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 180W-20% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W-23% | 650W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin + 6-pin |
| Length | 267mm | 268mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 78°C-3% |
| Perf/Watt | 70.7+26% | 56.0 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P5000 launched at $2499 MSRP and currently averages $400, while the Arc A750 launched at $289 and now averages $229. The Arc A750 costs 42.8% less ($171 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 31.8 (Quadro P5000) vs 55.0 (Arc A750) — the Arc A750 offers 73% better value. The Arc A750 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro P5000 | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | $289-88% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $400 | $229-43% |
| Performance per Dollar | 31.8 | 55.0+73% |
| Codename | GP104 | DG2-512 |
| Release | October 1 2016 | October 12 2022 |
| Ranking | #206 | #212 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P5000 and Arc A750
