Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the GeForce GTX 1630 and Arc A750 compare in raw compute performance?

A: The Arc A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1.828 TFLOPS for the GTX 1630. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A750 scores 98,554 against 24,858, a 74.8% advantage.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Arc A750 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1630 has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s. The A750 offers four times the memory and over five times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The Arc A750 has a 225 W TDP, requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and needs a 550 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Arc A750 has dedicated ray tracing cores, with 28 of them. The GTX 1630 lists no RT cores. The A750 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1630 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 1630 has an average benchmark score of 24,277, while the Arc A750 averages 20,582. Despite this, the A750 wins both head-to-head compute tests by large margins; the GTX 1630's higher average comes from a different benchmark mix.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: Both cards are end-of-life. The GTX 1630 launched on 2022-06-27, and the Arc A750 launched on 2022-10-11.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 21,700 million transistors across a 406 mm² die, achieving 53.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

The GTX 1630 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It has no RT cores or tensor cores. The Arc A750 is far more heavily equipped: 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. This nearly sevenfold difference in shading units explains the massive gap in raw throughput.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The GTX 1630 uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The Arc A750 uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the GTX 1630 versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the A750.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The GTX 1630 runs at 1740 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. The Arc A750 runs at 2050 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, giving it a 615 MHz higher boost ceiling. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: 28.56 GPixel/s and 57.12 GTexel/s for the GTX 1630, versus 268.8 GPixel/s and 537.6 GTexel/s for the A750.

The GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1630 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a; the A750 has one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 2.0 ports. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the A750 adds DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, which the GTX 1630 lacks.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A750 wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 98,554 versus 24,858, a 74.8% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 85,631 versus 23,695, a 72.3% lead. The A750 also holds advantages in every architectural category: more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, higher clocks, and dedicated RT cores.

The GTX 1630's strengths are practical rather than performance-based. Its 75 W TDP means no power connectors are needed, and a 250 W PSU suffices. Its single-slot design and compact dimensions (145 mm length, 69 mm height, 18 mm width) make it suitable for small builds. The A750 is a dual-slot card requiring two power connectors and a 550 W PSU, with no listed dimensions for comparison.

For workloads that depend on FP32 compute, the A750 is the clear choice. Its 17.20 TFLOPS dwarfs the GTX 1630's 1.828 TFLOPS, a roughly 9.4x difference. The A750 also offers FP16 performance of 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) for the GTX 1630. The A750's 28 RT cores enable hardware ray tracing, which the GTX 1630 cannot do at all.

The GTX 1630's niche is legacy compatibility. Its DVI output and older PCIe 3.0 interface may suit older systems. Its 4 GB memory is sufficient for lighter workloads, and its low power draw simplifies installation. However, the data shows no benchmark where the GTX 1630 outperforms the A750.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification. The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip on Turing architecture, while the A750 uses DG2-512 on Xe-HPG. Process nodes differ: 12 nm versus 6 nm. Transistor counts are 4,700 million versus 21,700 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 406 mm².

Clock speeds: GTX 1630 base 1740 MHz, boost 1785 MHz; A750 base 2050 MHz, boost 2400 MHz. Memory clocks: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps). Memory capacity: 4 GB versus 8 GB. Bus width: 64-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: 512 shading units versus 3,584, 32 TMUs versus 224, 16 ROPs versus 112. RT cores: none versus 28. Pixel rate: 28.56 GPixel/s versus 268.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 57.12 GTexel/s versus 537.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 1.828 TFLOPS versus 17.20 TFLOPS. FP16: 3.656 TFLOPS versus 34.41 TFLOPS.

Power and physical: TDP 75 W versus 225 W; single-slot versus dual-slot; no power connectors versus 6-pin plus 8-pin; suggested PSU 250 W versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Dimensions for the A750 are not recorded, while the GTX 1630 measures 145 mm by 69 mm by 18 mm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two direct benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the Arc A750 wins both by overwhelming margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A750 scores 98,554 against the GTX 1630's 24,858. The delta is 74.8% in favor of the A750. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across GPU workloads, and the result aligns with the architectural gap: the A750 has 3,584 shading units versus 512, and 17.20 TFLOPS versus 1.828 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A750 scores 85,631 against 23,695 for the GTX 1630, a 72.3% advantage. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the A750's higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth contribute to its dominance. The A750's 2400 MHz boost and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth far exceed the GTX 1630's 1785 MHz and 96.00 GB/s.

The percentile rankings place the GTX 1630 at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A750 sits at the 66th percentile. This appears counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but the GTX 1630's nearest rivals include the GTX 780 Ti (0.2% ahead), RTX 2080 SUPER (0.4% ahead), and RX 6600 XT (0.7% behind), all clustered near its 24,277 average. The A750's nearest rivals include the Arc B570 (0.1% ahead), RTX 3070 Mobile (0.2% ahead), and R9 M390X (0.4% behind), clustered near its 20,582 average. The two cards simply occupy different performance tiers in the database's overall ranking system.

The A750's broader benchmark suite shows additional strengths: 12,534 in Passmark G3D, 5,368 in GPU compute, and 181 in Passmark DirectX 9. The GTX 1630 has no records for these tests, so no direct comparison is possible. The A750 also records 2,612 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a modern test the GTX 1630 does not appear in.

The Verdict

The data supports one clear conclusion: the Intel Arc A750 is the substantially faster card. In every recorded head-to-head benchmark, it leads by more than 70%. Its architectural advantages are comprehensive: 8 GB versus 4 GB memory, 512.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, 3,584 versus 512 shading units, and 17.20 versus 1.828 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It also adds hardware ray tracing, a feature the GTX 1630 lacks entirely.

The GTX 1630's case rests on simplicity. Its 75 W TDP requires no extra power connectors and only a 250 W PSU, versus 225 W, dual connectors, and 550 W for the A750. Its single-slot profile and compact dimensions fit where the dual-slot A750 may not. For a system with tight space, limited power delivery, or a need for DVI output, the GTX 1630 remains viable.

However, for anyone choosing between these two based on performance, the Arc A750 is the only rational pick. Its benchmark scores are multiples of the GTX 1630's, and its memory subsystem alone (4x capacity, over 5x bandwidth) removes any contention. The A750's launch MSRP was 289 USD, a figure worth noting for historical context, but the recorded data does not include a launch price for the GTX 1630.

The GTX 1630's 70th percentile ranking versus the A750's 66th reflects different benchmark populations, not actual performance equivalence. The head-to-head results are unambiguous: 74.8% and 72.3% leads for the A750. The verdict is straightforward: pick the A750 for compute, graphics, ray tracing, or future-proofing. Pick the GTX 1630 only if power, space, or legacy connectivity constraints rule out the A750 entirely.