Arc A750 vs Radeon Pro W5700X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5700X with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700X outperforms Arc A750 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 74 | 179 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 44.56 | 56.35 |
| Power efficiency | 15.36 | 9.71 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 December 2019 (5 years ago) | 12 October 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Arc A750 has 26% better value for money than Pro W5700X.
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 | 2304 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 1243 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2040 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 293.8 | 537.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.4 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 112 |
| TMUs | 144 | 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 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 305 mm | no data |
| Width | Quad-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 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, 4x Thunderbolt | 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 | 6.5 | 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.
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.
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 | 150−160
+37.6%
| 109
−37.6%
|
| 1440p | 85−90
+44.1%
| 59
−44.1%
|
| 4K | 50−55
+38.9%
| 36
−38.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.66
−151%
| 2.65
+151%
|
| 1440p | 11.75
−140%
| 4.90
+140%
|
| 4K | 19.98
−149%
| 8.03
+149%
|
- Arc A750 has 151% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc A750 has 140% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc A750 has 149% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 285
+0%
|
285
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 239
+0%
|
239
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Pro W5700X and Arc A750 compete in popular games:
- Pro W5700X is 38% faster in 1080p
- Pro W5700X is 44% faster in 1440p
- Pro W5700X is 39% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 45.75 | 31.74 |
| Recency | 11 December 2019 | 12 October 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 225 Watt |
Pro W5700X has a 44.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 9.8% lower power consumption.
Arc A750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W5700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A750 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700X 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
