Arc A750 vs Quadro M4000

Place in the ranking	314	176
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.46	55.38
Power efficiency	10.04	9.63
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GM204	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	29 June 2015 (9 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$791	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 914% better value for money than Quadro M4000.

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	1664	3584
Core clock speed	773 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	80.39	537.6
Floating-point processing power	2.573 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	112
TMUs	104	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	241 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 192 GB/s	512.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync	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
High-Performance Video I/O6	+	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 M4000 17.29

Arc A750 31.10
+79.9%

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 M4000 6671

Arc A750 11998
+79.9%

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	60−65 −83.3%	110 +83.3%
1440p	30−35 −96.7%	59 +96.7%
4K	18−21 −100%	36 +100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	13.18	2.63
1440p	26.37	4.90
4K	43.94	8.03

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 M4000 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 83% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 97% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 100% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.29	31.10
Recency	29 June 2015	12 October 2022
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	225 Watt

Quadro M4000 has 87.5% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 79.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000 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.