Arc A750 vs Quadro P4200

Place in the ranking	233	188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	56.31
Power efficiency	17.14	9.69
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GP104	DG2-512
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	21 February 2018 (7 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 cores	2304	3584
Core clock speed	1227 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1647 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	237.2	537.6
Floating-point processing power	7.589 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	112
TMUs	144	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Width	no data	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	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	192.3 GB/s	512.0 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	6.1	-
DLSS	-	+

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.

Quadro P4200 23.36

Arc A750 29.70
+27.1%

Passmark

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 P4200 10729

Arc A750 12329
+14.9%

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	80−85 −33.8%	107 +33.8%
1440p	45−50 −35.6%	61 +35.6%
4K	27−30 −33.3%	36 +33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.70
1440p	no data	4.74
4K	no data	8.03

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset
Full HD
Medium Preset
Full HD
High Preset
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Full HD
Epic Preset
1440p
High Preset
1440p
Ultra Preset
1440p
Epic Preset
4K
High Preset
4K
Ultra Preset
4K
Epic Preset

Counter-Strike 2	130−140 −147%	336 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 −47.1%	75 +47.1%
Hogwarts Legacy	45−50 −131%	111 +131%

Battlefield 5	90−95 −19.1%	110−120 +19.1%
Counter-Strike 2	130−140 −98.5%	270 +98.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 −29.4%	66 +29.4%
Far Cry 5	75−80 −42.3%	111 +42.3%
Fortnite	110−120 −17.9%	130−140 +17.9%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −19.1%	112 +19.1%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 −76%	132 +76%
Hogwarts Legacy	45−50 −77.1%	85 +77.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −29.3%	110−120 +29.3%
Valorant	160−170 −16.6%	190−200 +16.6%

Battlefield 5	90−95 −19.1%	110−120 +19.1%
Counter-Strike 2	130−140 −5.9%	144 +5.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	250−260 −7.5%	270−280 +7.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 −13.7%	58 +13.7%
Dota 2	120−130 −24%	150−160 +24%
Far Cry 5	75−80 −30.8%	102 +30.8%
Fortnite	110−120 −17.9%	130−140 +17.9%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −12.8%	106 +12.8%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 −61.3%	121 +61.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 −15.1%	99 +15.1%
Hogwarts Legacy	45−50 −41.7%	68 +41.7%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −102%	105 +102%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −29.3%	110−120 +29.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 −164%	185 +164%
Valorant	160−170 −16.6%	190−200 +16.6%

Battlefield 5	90−95 −19.1%	110−120 +19.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 −7.8%	55 +7.8%
Dota 2	120−130 −24%	150−160 +24%
Far Cry 5	75−80 −25.6%	98 +25.6%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +4.4%	90 −4.4%
Hogwarts Legacy	45−50 −14.6%	55 +14.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −29.3%	110−120 +29.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +1.4%	69 −1.4%
Valorant	160−170 −16.6%	190−200 +16.6%

Fortnite

110−120

−17.9%

130−140
+17.9%

Counter-Strike 2	50−55 −71.2%	89 +71.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	160−170 −24.6%	200−210 +24.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +4.9%	41 −4.9%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −110%	65 +110%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	200−210 −11.8%	220−230 +11.8%

Battlefield 5	65−70 −21.2%	80−85 +21.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −82.6%	42 +82.6%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −43.4%	76 +43.4%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −29.5%	79 +29.5%
Hogwarts Legacy	24−27 −61.5%	42 +61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −50%	57 +50%

Fortnite

55−60

−33.9%

75−80
+33.9%

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +15%	20 −15%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 −2.3%	45 +2.3%
Hogwarts Legacy	14−16 −26.7%	18−20 +26.7%
Metro Exodus	20−22 −115%	43 +115%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −97.1%	69 +97.1%
Valorant	130−140 −29.7%	170−180 +29.7%

Battlefield 5	35−40 −30.6%	45−50 +30.6%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −43.5%	30−35 +43.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −130%	23 +130%
Dota 2	75−80 −21.8%	95−100 +21.8%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −66.7%	45 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −45.2%	61 +45.2%
Hogwarts Legacy	14−16 −53.3%	23 +53.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −40%	35−40 +40%

Fortnite

24−27

−34.6%

35−40
+34.6%

This is how Quadro P4200 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 34% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 36% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 33% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 15% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A750 is 164% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
Arc A750 is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	23.36	29.70
Recency	21 February 2018	12 October 2022
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt

Quadro P4200 has 125% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 27.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation card while Arc A750 is a desktop one.