Arc A750 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

Place in the ranking	175	179
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	45.44	56.35
Power efficiency	10.53	9.71
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Vega 10	DG2-512
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A750 has 24% better value for money than Pro Vega 56.

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	3584	3584
Core clock speed	1138 MHz	2050 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	537.6
Floating-point processing power	8.96 TFLOPS	17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	112
TMUs	224	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 x16	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	HBM2	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI	+	+

API 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	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	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 Vega 56 32.13
+1.2%

Arc A750 31.74

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 Vega 56 12353
+1.2%

Arc A750 12202

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.

Pro Vega 56 25589

Arc A750 37288
+45.7%

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.

Pro Vega 56 17797

Arc A750 29667
+66.7%

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	100 −9%	109 +9%
1440p	55−60 −7.3%	59 +7.3%
4K	61 +69.4%	36 −69.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.99 −50.5%	2.65 +50.5%
1440p	7.25 −48.1%	4.90 +48.1%
4K	6.54 +22.7%	8.03 −22.7%

Arc A750 has 50% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Arc A750 has 48% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Pro Vega 56 has 23% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −44.4%	91 +44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3.1%	65−70 −3.1%
Elden Ring	100−110 +29.8%	84 −29.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +1.1%	90−95 −1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −39.7%	88 +39.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3.1%	65−70 −3.1%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −91.3%	285 +91.3%
Metro Exodus	80−85 −43.2%	116 +43.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1.5%	65−70 −1.5%
Valorant	120−130 +0.8%	120−130 −0.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +1.1%	90−95 −1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −20.6%	76 +20.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3.1%	65−70 −3.1%
Dota 2	36 −175%	99 +175%
Elden Ring	100−110 +0.9%	100−110 −0.9%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +29.4%	68 −29.4%
Fortnite	150−160 +1.4%	140−150 −1.4%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −60.4%	239 +60.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +6.1%	99 −6.1%
Metro Exodus	80−85 −16%	94 +16%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +1.1%	180−190 −1.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1.5%	65−70 −1.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +0.9%	100−110 −0.9%
Valorant	120−130 +0.8%	120−130 −0.8%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +1.1%	90−95 −1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −19%	75 +19%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3.1%	65−70 −3.1%
Dota 2	102 +2%	100−105 −2%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −33.6%	199 +33.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +1.1%	180−190 −1.1%
Valorant	120−130 +0.8%	120−130 −0.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +39%	41 −39%
Elden Ring	60−65 +1.7%	60−65 −1.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +39%	41 −39%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
World of Tanks	200−210 +1.5%	200−210 −1.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 −80%	54 +80%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +2%	95−100 −2%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −62.9%	145 +62.9%
Metro Exodus	70−75 −19.4%	86 +19.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −11.8%	57 +11.8%
Valorant	90−95 +1.1%	90−95 −1.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +55%	20 −55%
Dota 2	55−60 +31.1%	45 −31.1%
Elden Ring	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +31.1%	45 −31.1%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −65.4%	43 +65.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1%	100−105 −1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +31.1%	45 −31.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Dota 2	96 +6.7%	90−95 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +2.3%	40−45 −2.3%
Fortnite	40−45 +2.4%	40−45 −2.4%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −64.7%	84 +64.7%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

Arc A750 is 9% faster in 1080p
Arc A750 is 7% faster in 1440p
Pro Vega 56 is 69% 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 Pro Vega 56 is 55% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A750 is 175% faster.

All in all, in popular games: