Arc A750 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	187	177
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.25	56.31
Power efficiency	19.70	9.57
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GP104	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 226% better value for money than Quadro P4000.

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	1792	3584
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	537.6
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	112
TMUs	112	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-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	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
HDMI	-	+
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	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	+	1.3
CUDA	6.1	-

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 P4000 30.17

Arc A750 31.41
+4.1%

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 P4000 11624

Arc A750 12102
+4.1%

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	72 −50%	108 +50%
1440p	55−60 −5.5%	58 +5.5%
4K	30−35 −16.7%	35 +16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.32	2.68
1440p	14.82	4.98
4K	27.17	8.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55
+2%

50−55

−2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +4.8%	62 −4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 −73.1%	90 +73.1%
Battlefield 5	95−100 −43.9%	140−150 +43.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 −41.9%	85−90 +41.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −35.3%	90−95 +35.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 −40.3%	100−110 +40.3%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 −22.4%	200−210 +22.4%
Hitman 3	60−65 −49.2%	90−95 +49.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 −33.8%	170−180 +33.8%
Metro Exodus	100−110 −41.2%	144 +41.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 −30.3%	95−100 +30.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 −57.1%	160−170 +57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 −18.4%	130−140 +18.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 −63.1%	106 +63.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 −46.2%	76 +46.2%
Battlefield 5	95−100 −43.9%	140−150 +43.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 −41.9%	85−90 +41.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −35.3%	90−95 +35.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 −40.3%	100−110 +40.3%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 −22.4%	200−210 +22.4%
Hitman 3	60−65 −49.2%	90−95 +49.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 −33.8%	170−180 +33.8%
Metro Exodus	100−110 −40.2%	143 +40.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 −30.3%	95−100 +30.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 −128%	239 +128%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 −42.2%	90−95 +42.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 −18.4%	130−140 +18.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +44.4%	45 −44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 −32.7%	69 +32.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 −41.9%	85−90 +41.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −35.3%	90−95 +35.3%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +83.3%	90 −83.3%
Hitman 3	60−65 −49.2%	90−95 +49.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +17.7%	113 −17.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 −89.5%	199 +89.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 −68.3%	69 +68.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +81%	63 −81%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80

−30.3%

95−100
+30.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −50.9%	85−90 +50.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 −45.7%	65−70 +45.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −18.8%	38 +18.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 −74.2%	54 +74.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −48.6%	50−55 +48.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −45.7%	50−55 +45.7%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 −37.4%	230−240 +37.4%
Hitman 3	35−40 −56.8%	55−60 +56.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −46%	92 +46%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −50.9%	86 +50.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −110%	145 +110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −42.5%	57 +42.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	160−170 −25.9%	200−210 +25.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55

−49%

75−80
+49%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −58.3%	35−40 +58.3%
Hitman 3	24−27 −50%	35−40 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 −28.5%	190−200 +28.5%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −122%	80 +122%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −103%	69 +103%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 −47.4%	28 +47.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 −76.5%	30 +76.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −61.1%	27−30 +61.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −52.9%	24−27 +52.9%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −48.8%	61 +48.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −115%	84 +115%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −114%	30 +114%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−53.8%

40−45
+53.8%

This is how Quadro P4000 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 50% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 5% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 17% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 83% faster.
in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A750 is 128% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
Arc A750 is ahead in 61 test (92%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.17	31.41
Recency	6 February 2017	12 October 2022
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt

Quadro P4000 has 125% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 4.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4000 and Arc A750.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 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.