Arc A750 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.78

Arc A750 outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 558% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking643177
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.9656.34
Power efficiency9.369.57
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameLexaDG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 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 1323% 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 cores5123584
Core clock speed925 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate39.01537.6
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs16112
TMUs32224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slot2-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s512.0 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort1x 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.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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 4.78
Arc A750 31.43
+558%

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 12109
+558%

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 HD16−18
−575%
108
+575%
1440p8−9
−625%
58
+625%
4K5−6
−600%
35
+600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.312.68
1440p18.634.98
4K29.808.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−525%
50−55
+525%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−377%
62
+377%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−1700%
90
+1700%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−1075%
140−150
+1075%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−780%
85−90
+780%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−525%
50−55
+525%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−820%
90−95
+820%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−731%
100−110
+731%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−573%
200−210
+573%
Hitman 3 10−11
−840%
90−95
+840%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−474%
170−180
+474%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−1209%
144
+1209%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−662%
95−100
+662%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−871%
160−170
+871%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−200%
130−140
+200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−715%
106
+715%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−1420%
76
+1420%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−1075%
140−150
+1075%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−780%
85−90
+780%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−525%
50−55
+525%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−820%
90−95
+820%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−731%
100−110
+731%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−573%
200−210
+573%
Hitman 3 10−11
−840%
90−95
+840%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−474%
170−180
+474%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−1200%
143
+1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−662%
95−100
+662%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−1306%
239
+1306%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−435%
90−95
+435%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−200%
130−140
+200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−246%
45
+246%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−1280%
69
+1280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−780%
85−90
+780%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−525%
50−55
+525%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−820%
90−95
+820%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−200%
90
+200%
Hitman 3 10−11
−840%
90−95
+840%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−265%
113
+265%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−1071%
199
+1071%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−306%
69
+306%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−40%
63
+40%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−662%
95−100
+662%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−856%
85−90
+856%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−857%
65−70
+857%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−850%
38
+850%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−920%
50−55
+920%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−2556%
230−240
+2556%
Hitman 3 9−10
−544%
55−60
+544%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−736%
92
+736%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−4200%
86
+4200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1325%
57
+1325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−580%
200−210
+580%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−744%
75−80
+744%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−1400%
45−50
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−1167%
35−40
+1167%
Hitman 3 1−2
−3500%
35−40
+3500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−3780%
190−200
+3780%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−7900%
80
+7900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−6800%
69
+6800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−833%
28
+833%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1350%
27−30
+1350%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−1425%
61
+1425%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 54
+0%
54
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 145
+0%
145
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 84
+0%
84
+0%

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

  • Arc A750 is 575% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 625% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A750 is 600% 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 7900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is ahead in 63 tests (95%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.78 31.43
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 557.5% 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.

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 PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 852 votes

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.