Arc A750 vs Radeon 680M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 680M with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 680M
2023
50 Watt
7.46

Arc A750 outperforms 680M by a whopping 270% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking513186
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data54.53
Power efficiency11.829.71
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameRembrandt+DG2-512
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 January 2023 (2 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 cores7683584
Core clock speed2000 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speed2200 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors13,100 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate105.6537.6
Floating-point processing power3.379 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs32112
TMUs48224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Cores1228

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 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x 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 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.31.3
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.

Radeon 680M 7.46
Arc A750 27.57
+270%

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.

Radeon 680M 3334
Arc A750 12322
+270%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Radeon 680M 10371
Arc A750 37288
+260%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Radeon 680M 34600
Arc A750 98837
+186%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Radeon 680M 6865
Arc A750 29667
+332%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Radeon 680M 43225
Arc A750 130715
+202%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Radeon 680M 359776
Arc A750 634482
+76.4%

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 HD37
−189%
107
+189%
1440p17
−259%
61
+259%
4K11
−227%
36
+227%

Cost per frame, $

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 47
−249%
164
+249%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
−700%
336
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
−97.4%
75
+97.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 37
−232%
123
+232%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−220%
110−120
+220%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
−543%
270
+543%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
−136%
66
+136%
Far Cry 5 38
−192%
111
+192%
Fortnite 45−50
−182%
130−140
+182%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−211%
112
+211%
Forza Horizon 5 52
−154%
132
+154%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−310%
110−120
+310%
Valorant 80−85
−132%
190−200
+132%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 20
−345%
89
+345%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−220%
110−120
+220%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
−243%
144
+243%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
−115%
270−280
+115%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
−176%
58
+176%
Dota 2 71
−266%
260−270
+266%
Far Cry 5 35
−191%
102
+191%
Fortnite 45−50
−182%
130−140
+182%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−194%
106
+194%
Forza Horizon 5 46
−163%
121
+163%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
−175%
99
+175%
Metro Exodus 23
−357%
105
+357%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−310%
110−120
+310%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
−363%
185
+363%
Valorant 80−85
−132%
190−200
+132%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−220%
110−120
+220%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
−206%
55
+206%
Dota 2 61
−261%
220−230
+261%
Far Cry 5 33
−197%
98
+197%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−150%
90
+150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−310%
110−120
+310%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
−188%
69
+188%
Valorant 146
−30.1%
190−200
+30.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
−182%
130−140
+182%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−536%
89
+536%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
−234%
200−210
+234%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
−141%
41
+141%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−713%
65
+713%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−317%
170−180
+317%
Valorant 90−95
−149%
220−230
+149%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−344%
80−85
+344%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
−320%
42
+320%
Far Cry 5 21
−262%
76
+262%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−316%
79
+316%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
−235%
57
+235%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
−341%
75−80
+341%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−137%
45
+137%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−1333%
43
+1333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−431%
69
+431%
Valorant 40−45
−326%
170−180
+326%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−422%
45−50
+422%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
−475%
23
+475%
Dota 2 18
−261%
65−70
+261%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−463%
45
+463%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−369%
61
+369%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%

This is how Radeon 680M and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 189% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 259% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A750 is 227% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A750 is 3200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Arc A750 surpassed Radeon 680M in all 60 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.46 27.57
Recency 3 January 2023 12 October 2022
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 225 Watt

Radeon 680M has an age advantage of 2 months, and 350% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 269.6% higher aggregate performance score.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 680M is a notebook 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 Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M
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.


4.2 1009 votes

Rate Radeon 680M 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 Radeon 680M or Arc A750, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.