Arc A750 vs FirePro D300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D300 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

FirePro D300
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
8.64

Arc A750 outperforms D300 by a whopping 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking464186
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data54.52
Power efficiency4.569.71
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code namePitcairnDG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date18 January 2014 (11 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores12803584
Core clock speed850 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate68.00537.6
Floating-point processing power2.176 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs32112
TMUs80224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length242 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth162.6 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
DLSS-+

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 HD30−35
−257%
107
+257%
1440p18−20
−239%
61
+239%
4K10−12
−260%
36
+260%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.70
1440pno data4.74
4Kno data8.03

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 164
+0%
164
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 336
+0%
336
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 123
+0%
123
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 111
+0%
111
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 112
+0%
112
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 132
+0%
132
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 89
+0%
89
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 144
+0%
144
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 106
+0%
106
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 121
+0%
121
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 99
+0%
99
+0%
Metro Exodus 105
+0%
105
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 185
+0%
185
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 89
+0%
89
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 41
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 65
+0%
65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 79
+0%
79
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 45
+0%
45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 61
+0%
61
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how FirePro D300 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 257% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 239% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A750 is 260% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.64 27.57
Recency 18 January 2014 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 225 Watt

FirePro D300 has 50% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 219.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D300 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro D300 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro D300
FirePro D300
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 32 votes

Rate FirePro D300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 894 votes

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro D300 or Arc A750, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.