Arc A750 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

Place in the ranking	644	179
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.76	56.37
Power efficiency	9.42	9.71
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Lexa	DG2-512
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	4 June 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 1399% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.

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	512	3584
Core clock speed	925 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	39.01	537.6
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	112
TMUs	32	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 x8	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	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	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48 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	1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort	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.

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3

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.

PRO WX 2100 4.79

Arc A750 31.75
+563%

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.

PRO WX 2100 1841

Arc A750 12206
+563%

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	16−18 −581%	109 +581%
1440p	8−9 −638%	59 +638%
4K	5−6 −620%	36 +620%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.31 −251%	2.65 +251%
1440p	18.63 −280%	4.90 +280%
4K	29.80 −271%	8.03 +271%

Arc A750 has 251% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Arc A750 has 280% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Arc A750 has 271% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −658%	91 +658%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −550%	65−70 +550%
Elden Ring	12−14 −600%	84 +600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −550%	90−95 +550%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −633%	88 +633%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −550%	65−70 +550%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −1325%	285 +1325%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −955%	116 +955%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −333%	65−70 +333%
Valorant	10−12 −1055%	120−130 +1055%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −550%	90−95 +550%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −533%	76 +533%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −550%	65−70 +550%
Dota 2	14−16 −560%	99 +560%
Elden Ring	12−14 −800%	100−110 +800%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −183%	68 +183%
Fortnite	27−30 −429%	140−150 +429%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −1095%	239 +1095%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −560%	99 +560%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −755%	94 +755%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −341%	180−190 +341%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −333%	65−70 +333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −575%	100−110 +575%
Valorant	10−12 −1055%	120−130 +1055%
World of Tanks	75−80 −249%	270−280 +249%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −550%	90−95 +550%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −525%	75 +525%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −550%	65−70 +550%
Dota 2	14−16 −533%	95−100 +533%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −263%	85−90 +263%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −895%	199 +895%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −341%	180−190 +341%
Valorant	10−12 −1055%	120−130 +1055%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4 −1267%	41 +1267%
Elden Ring	5−6 −1100%	60−65 +1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 −925%	41 +925%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −447%	170−180 +447%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
World of Tanks	30−35 −500%	200−210 +500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −786%	60−65 +786%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −500%	54 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −890%	95−100 +890%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −2317%	145 +2317%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −2767%	86 +2767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −850%	57 +850%
Valorant	12−14 −608%	90−95 +608%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −165%	45 +165%
Elden Ring	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −181%	45 +181%
Metro Exodus	0−1	43
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −607%	95−100 +607%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −567%	20−22 +567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −181%	45 +181%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Dota 2	16−18 −547%	110−120 +547%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −780%	40−45 +780%
Fortnite	4−5 −950%	40−45 +950%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2700%	84 +2700%
Valorant	4−5 −1075%	45−50 +1075%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 581% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 638% faster in 1440p
Arc A750 is 620% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A750 is 2767% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A750 is ahead in 52 tests (96%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.79	31.75
Recency	4 June 2017	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	225 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has 542.9% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 562.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 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.