Arc A750 vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	442	177
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.63	56.34
Power efficiency	9.45	9.57
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GM206	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 1452% better value for money than Quadro M2000.

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	768	3584
Core clock speed	796 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	2,940 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	537.6
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	112
TMUs	48	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	201 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	128 Bit	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	512.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	4x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.2	-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M2000 10.34

Arc A750 31.43
+204%

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.

Quadro M2000 3985

Arc A750 12109
+204%

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	35−40 −209%	108 +209%
1440p	18−20 −222%	58 +222%
4K	10−12 −250%	35 +250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	12.51	2.68
1440p	24.32	4.98
4K	43.78	8.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	62 +0%	62 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	90 +0%	90 +0%
Battlefield 5	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Hitman 3	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	106 +0%	106 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	76 +0%	76 +0%
Battlefield 5	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Hitman 3	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	143 +0%	143 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	239 +0%	239 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45 +0%	45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	69 +0%	69 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90 +0%	90 +0%
Hitman 3	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	113 +0%	113 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	199 +0%	199 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	69 +0%	69 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	63 +0%	63 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

95−100

+0%

95−100

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	38 +0%	38 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	54 +0%	54 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Hitman 3	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	92 +0%	92 +0%
Metro Exodus	86 +0%	86 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	145 +0%	145 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 +0%	57 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80

+0%

75−80

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Metro Exodus	80 +0%	80 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	69 +0%	69 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	28 +0%	28 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30 +0%	30 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	61 +0%	61 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	84 +0%	84 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30 +0%	30 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 209% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 222% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 250% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.34	31.43
Recency	8 April 2016	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	225 Watt

Quadro M2000 has 200% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 204% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.