Arc A750 vs Radeon HD 6970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6970 and Arc A750, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A750 outperforms HD 6970 by a whopping 334% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 554 | 188 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.92 | 54.54 |
| Power efficiency | 2.01 | 9.70 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Cayman | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 14 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $369 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Arc A750 has 5828% better value for money than HD 6970.
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 | 1536 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 880 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,640 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.48 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.703 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 |
| TMUs | 96 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| 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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
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.
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.
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 | 24−27
−346%
| 107
+346%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−336%
| 61
+336%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−350%
| 36
+350%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 15.38
−469%
| 2.70
+469%
|
| 1440p | 26.36
−456%
| 4.74
+456%
|
| 4K | 46.13
−475%
| 8.03
+475%
|
- Arc A750 has 469% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc A750 has 456% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc A750 has 475% lower cost per frame in 4K
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 - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−888%
|
336
+888%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−436%
|
75
+436%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−754%
|
111
+754%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−270%
|
110−120
+270%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−694%
|
270
+694%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−371%
|
66
+371%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−405%
|
111
+405%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−229%
|
130−140
+229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−261%
|
112
+261%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−560%
|
132
+560%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−554%
|
85
+554%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−376%
|
110−120
+376%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−157%
|
190−200
+157%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−270%
|
110−120
+270%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−324%
|
144
+324%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−146%
|
270−280
+146%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−314%
|
58
+314%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−326%
|
230−240
+326%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−364%
|
102
+364%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−229%
|
130−140
+229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−242%
|
106
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−505%
|
121
+505%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−296%
|
99
+296%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−423%
|
68
+423%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−708%
|
105
+708%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−376%
|
110−120
+376%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−928%
|
185
+928%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−157%
|
190−200
+157%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−270%
|
110−120
+270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−293%
|
55
+293%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−326%
|
230−240
+326%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−345%
|
98
+345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−190%
|
90
+190%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−323%
|
55
+323%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−376%
|
110−120
+376%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−283%
|
69
+283%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−157%
|
190−200
+157%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−229%
|
130−140
+229%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−709%
|
89
+709%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−291%
|
200−210
+291%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−356%
|
41
+356%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−829%
|
65
+829%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−349%
|
170−180
+349%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−191%
|
220−230
+191%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−740%
|
42
+740%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−407%
|
76
+407%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−394%
|
79
+394%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−500%
|
42
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−470%
|
57
+470%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−436%
|
75−80
+436%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−150%
|
45
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2050%
|
43
+2050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1280%
|
69
+1280%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−411%
|
170−180
+411%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−683%
|
45−50
+683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1050%
|
23
+1050%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−300%
|
100−105
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−463%
|
45
+463%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−455%
|
61
+455%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−1050%
|
23
+1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how HD 6970 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Arc A750 is 346% faster in 1080p
- Arc A750 is 336% faster in 1440p
- Arc A750 is 350% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A750 is 2050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A750 is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.35 | 27.57 |
| Recency | 14 December 2010 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 225 Watt |
Arc A750 has a 334.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 144.4% lower power consumption.
The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6970 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
