Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 — the data is unambiguous. The Arc A310 outperforms the GTX 750 in both available head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 228%, making this a generational mismatch rather than a competitive duel. Despite both cards holding the 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, the A310's raw compute and API support place it in a different performance tier entirely. Below, the benchmark evidence and architectural breakdown explain exactly why.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc A310 wins both direct comparisons, and it does so decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A310 scores 30607 against the GTX 750's 9315, a delta of 228.6%. This is not a close contest — the Intel part delivers over three times the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the A310 posts 28964 versus 8078 for the GTX 750, a 258.6% advantage. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the GTX 750's Maxwell architecture simply lacks the hardware features to compete efficiently there.

The A310's average benchmark score of 7550 further cements its lead over the GTX 750's 7222. While the A310's average sits within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557) and 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), the GTX 750's average is just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203). In other words, the A310 is competing with cards from a much later generation, while the GTX 750 is bracketed by integrated graphics and older discrete parts. The Passmark suite tells a similar story for the A310: it scores 5433 in G3D, 2157 in GPU compute, and 625 in G2D, though the GTX 750 has no Passmark results in the data to compare directly.

The GTX 750's sole measurable victory is the Geekbench Metal score of 4274, but the A310 has no Metal result, so this is not a direct head-to-head comparison. For cross-platform compute, the A310's OpenCL and Vulkan scores are so far ahead that the Metal result appears irrelevant to the overall picture.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells the story of why the A310 wins. Intel's Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². NVIDIA's GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of just 12.6M per mm². The A310's density advantage is 3.6 times, enabling far more compute resources in a similar physical footprint.

The compute core counts diverge sharply. The A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, plus 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The GTX 750 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. The A310's pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s versus the GTX 750's 17.36 GPixel/s, and its texture rate reaches 56.00 GTexel/s against the GTX 750's 34.72 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS for the A310 versus 1,111.0 GFLOPS for the GTX 750 — a 2.4 times advantage. The A310 also supports FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 750 has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory systems are another differentiator. The A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 750 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s. Despite the A310's narrower bus, its faster GDDR6 memory clocks (1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective versus 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective) yield 54% more bandwidth. The A310 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 750 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 — the newer interface offers more bandwidth per lane.

API support is a decisive feature gap. The A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 750 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0), though it matches OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The A310's DirectX 12 Ultimate includes hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the GTX 750 cannot access. Display outputs also differ: the A310 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, while the GTX 750 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 is the clear winner for modern compute and graphics workloads. Its OpenCL score of 30607 indicates strong general-purpose compute performance, useful for tasks like video encoding, scientific calculations, and AI inference. The Vulkan score of 28964 shows it handles modern game engines efficiently, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it can run the latest titles with advanced features like ray tracing. The A310's 4 GB VRAM also allows it to handle larger textures and datasets than the GTX 750's 1 GB.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750's advantages are limited to legacy scenarios. Its 145 mm length makes it a compact card for small form factor builds, and its 55 W TDP is low, though the A310 is even lower at 30 W. The GTX 750's Metal score of 4274 suggests it works in Apple ecosystem environments where the A310 has no presence. For users running older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 applications, the A310's Passmark scores (69 for DirectX 9, 31 for DirectX 10) indicate it handles these, but the GTX 750's legacy driver maturity might be preferable in practice — though no direct data exists to confirm this.

The power draw difference is notable: the A310's 30 W TDP versus the GTX 750's 55 W means the Intel card is nearly twice as power-efficient while delivering far more performance. The A310 also requires no power connectors and suggests a 200 W PSU, while the GTX 750 also needs no connectors but suggests a 250 W PSU. For low-power or fanless systems, the A310 is the superior choice.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Arc A310 faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750?

A: Yes, decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A310 scores 30607 versus 9315 for the GTX 750, a 228.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A310 scores 28964 versus 8078, a 258.6% lead.

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 has 1024 MB of GDDR5. The A310 also offers higher bandwidth at 124.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Does the GTX 750 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 750 has no ray tracing cores, while the A310 includes 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which enables hardware ray tracing.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the GTX 750?

A: The GTX 750 had a launch MSRP of 119 USD. The Arc A310 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Arc A310 has a 30 W TDP versus the GTX 750's 55 W, making it nearly twice as efficient. The A310 also has a lower suggested PSU requirement (200 W versus 250 W).

Q: Can the GTX 750 run Vulkan games?

A: Yes, the GTX 750 supports Vulkan 1.4, matching the A310. However, its Vulkan performance is far lower, scoring 8078 versus the A310's 28964.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: choose the Intel Arc A310 over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 for virtually any modern workload. The A310 leads by over 228% in OpenCL and over 258% in Vulkan, offering 4 GB VRAM versus 1 GB, and supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing. Its 30 W TDP makes it more power-efficient than the GTX 750's 55 W, and it requires a smaller PSU. The A310's average benchmark score of 7550 places it alongside the GTX 1650, while the GTX 750's 7222 average is nearer to integrated graphics like the Vega 8 Mobile.

The GTX 750's only advantages are its 145 mm compact length, its Metal API support for Apple users, and its legacy driver maturity for very old software. None of these outweigh the A310's massive performance lead. The GTX 750 is a product of the 2014 era, and the A310, despite being end-of-life, represents a much later architectural generation with correspondingly better capabilities. For anyone choosing between these two, the A310 is the only rational pick based on benchmark evidence.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1750 MHz | 1020 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1750 MHz | 1085 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 32 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 28.00 GPixel/s | 17.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 56.00 GTexel/s | 34.72 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.688 TFLOPS | 1,111.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 30 W | 55 W |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2014-02-17 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | GeForce 600 |

| Successor | Battlemage | GeForce 900 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |