Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two shared benchmark results between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z and the Intel Arc A750: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases, the Intel Arc A750 delivers a decisive victory.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554 points against the GTX TITAN Z’s 25,465 points. This represents a 74.2% advantage for the Intel card, meaning the TITAN Z achieves only about a quarter of the Arc A750’s compute output in this workload. The margin is substantial enough to classify the older Kepler flagship as non-competitive in modern OpenCL compute tasks.

The Geekbench Vulkan result follows the same pattern. The Arc A750 posts 85,631 points, while the GTX TITAN Z manages 22,006 points. The delta is 74.3%, nearly identical to the OpenCL gap. This consistency across two different API workloads suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific. The TITAN Z’s Vulkan score is especially telling: it trails the Arc A750 by roughly four times, even though the TITAN Z supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a reasonably modern API version.

The head-to-head tally shows 0 wins for the NVIDIA card and 2 wins for the Intel card. No other shared tests exist in the database, so the comparison is limited to these two compute-oriented benchmarks. Neither card has a win in any other recorded test category.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, the two cards occupy different performance tiers. The GTX TITAN Z’s average benchmark score is 23,736, placing it 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (23,628) and 0.9% ahead of the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile (23,518). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 9070 (23,877) by 0.6% and the RX 6800S (24,063) by 1.4%. These are narrow margins, indicating the TITAN Z sits at the top of a tightly grouped cluster of mobile and desktop GPUs from later generations.

The Intel Arc A750’s average score is 20,582, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc B570 (20,556) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534). It trails the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662) by 0.4% and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20,480) by 0.5%. The Arc A750’s rivals are all from a lower performance cluster than the TITAN Z’s rivals, yet the Arc A750 still wins the head-to-head by a wide margin in the two shared tests. This is a counterintuitive result: the TITAN Z sits higher in its own rivalry group, but the Arc A750’s raw compute scores dwarf it.

The explanation lies in the nature of the benchmarks. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan heavily favor architectures with modern compute features, high clock speeds, and efficient instruction scheduling. The TITAN Z’s Kepler architecture, despite its 2,880 shading units, cannot overcome its low clock speeds and outdated compute pipeline. The Arc A750’s Xe-HPG architecture, with 3,584 shading units and a 2,400 MHz boost clock, delivers far higher raw throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z uses the GK110B chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 7,080 million transistors packed into a 561 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.6 million per square millimeter. This was a flagship-class design for 2014, but the process node is now three generations old relative to the Intel part.

The Intel Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. The transistor density is 53.4 million per square millimeter, which is over four times higher than the GTX TITAN Z. Smaller die, more transistors, and dramatically higher density: the Arc A750 benefits from over eight years of process technology advancement.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The GTX TITAN Z runs at 705 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The Arc A750 runs at 2,050 MHz base and 2,400 MHz boost. The Intel card operates at nearly three times the clock frequency. This single difference explains a large portion of the performance gap in the compute benchmarks.

Memory configuration differs in capacity, type, and bandwidth. The TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s. The Arc A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. Despite a narrower bus, the Arc A750’s faster memory (16 Gbps effective versus 7 Gbps effective) provides 52% more bandwidth. The extra 2 GB of capacity also matters for modern workloads that exceed 6 GB.

The compute units differ substantially. The TITAN Z has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The Arc A750 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Intel has more shaders and more than double the ROPs, while NVIDIA has slightly more TMUs. Pixel rate favors Intel massively: 268.8 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors Intel: 537.6 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 17.20 TFLOPS for Intel versus 5.046 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 3.4x advantage.

The Arc A750 also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the TITAN Z lacks entirely. The Intel card supports FP16 at 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the TITAN Z has no recorded FP16 capability. API support differs: the Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the TITAN Z supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The TITAN Z’s DirectX 12 support is limited to feature level 11_1, meaning it cannot run many modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

Power and physical design also diverge. The TITAN Z is rated at 375 W TDP, requires two 8-pin power connectors, a 750 W suggested PSU, and occupies a triple-slot width. The Arc A750 is rated at 225 W TDP, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, suggests a 550 W PSU, and fits in a dual-slot width. The Arc A750 delivers far higher performance while consuming 150 W less power. The TITAN Z measures 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 62 mm wide; the Arc A750 has no recorded dimensions, but its dual-slot design implies a smaller footprint. Display outputs differ: the TITAN Z has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2; the Arc A750 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the Intel Arc A750. In the only two shared benchmarks, it beats the GTX TITAN Z by roughly 74% in both OpenCL and Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 20,582 is lower than the TITAN Z’s 23,736, but this is because the Arc A750’s average includes several Passmark tests where it scores modestly (65 to 181 in DirectX 9 through 12, 732 in G2D, 12,534 in G3D, 5,368 in GPU compute). The TITAN Z’s average is based on only two high-scoring Geekbench results. When comparing the shared tests directly, the Arc A750 is overwhelmingly faster.

The GTX TITAN Z’s value proposition, if any, rests on its standing among its nearest rivals. It sits within 1.5% of the RTX 3080 Mobile, RX 9070, RTX 3070 Ti Mobile, and RX 6800S. This means that in the broader database, the TITAN Z’s two benchmark results place it in a competitive tier with much newer GPUs. However, those rivals are all mobile or newer desktop parts, and the TITAN Z has no recorded wins in any head-to-head test.

For a buyer today, the Arc A750 is the sensible choice from a performance standpoint. It is faster in every shared metric, supports modern APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4), includes ray tracing hardware, uses less power, and requires a smaller PSU. The TITAN Z’s only advantages are its higher average benchmark score (driven by the limited test set) and its position among its nearest rivals. Neither of those offsets a 74% compute deficit.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a current-generation product. The TITAN Z launched on 2014-05-27 with a launch MSRP of 2,999 USD. The Arc A750 launched on 2022-10-11 with a launch MSRP of 289 USD. The price difference at launch was enormous, but the database does not record current street prices, so any value comparison must rely solely on performance and features.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A750 wins with a score of 98,554 against the GTX TITAN Z’s 25,465, a 74.2% advantage.

Q: Does the GTX TITAN Z support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX TITAN Z has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A750 has 28 RT cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX TITAN Z is rated at 375 W TDP with a 750 W suggested PSU. The Arc A750 is rated at 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A750 has 512.0 GB/s, while the GTX TITAN Z has 336.0 GB/s. The Arc A750 achieves this with a 256-bit bus and 16 Gbps GDDR6, versus the TITAN Z’s 384-bit bus and 7 Gbps GDDR5.

Q: How do the two cards compare in DirectX support?

A: The Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the TITAN Z supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The TITAN Z’s support is limited to feature level 11_1.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The Arc A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS, while the GTX TITAN Z delivers 5.046 TFLOPS. The Arc A750 is approximately 3.4 times faster in FP32.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 wins in every category where the two cards have recorded data. It wins both shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan) by margins of 74.2% and 74.3%. It also wins on raw specifications: higher clock speeds (2,400 MHz boost versus 876 MHz boost), more shading units (3,584 versus 2,880), more ROPs (112 versus 48), higher pixel rate (268.8 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (537.6 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s), higher FP32 (17.20 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS), and higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s). It also has 28 ray tracing cores, FP16 support, and a smaller power footprint.

The GTX TITAN Z wins only in two narrow respects. Its average benchmark score (23,736) is higher than the Arc A750’s (20,582), driven by the TITAN Z’s two strong Geekbench results. And its position among nearest rivals is slightly stronger: it is within 1.4% of the top rival (RX 6800S), while the Arc A750 is within 0.5% of its top rival (Quadro M4000M). These are statistical artifacts of the test set, not performance wins. The TITAN Z also has more TMUs (240 versus 224) and a wider memory bus (384-bit versus 256-bit), but these do not translate into any benchmark victory.

For use cases, the Arc A750 is better suited to modern gaming (DirectX 12 Ultimate support, ray tracing, higher pixel rate), compute workloads (OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly 4x higher), and any task that benefits from memory bandwidth above 336 GB/s. The TITAN Z’s triple-slot design, 375 W power draw, and limited API support make it a poor fit for current-generation software. The only scenario where the TITAN Z might be preferable is a retro or legacy workload that specifically requires its exact feature set, but the database provides no evidence of such an advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in every major specification category. Process node: 28 nm (TITAN Z) versus 6 nm (Arc A750). Transistor count: 7,080 million versus 21,700 million. Die size: 561 mm² versus 406 mm². Transistor density: 12.6M / mm² versus 53.4M / mm². Base clock: 705 MHz versus 2,050 MHz. Boost clock: 876 MHz versus 2,400 MHz. Memory clock: 7 Gbps effective versus 16 Gbps effective. Memory size: 6 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 384-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth: 336.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units: 2,880 versus 3,584. TMUs: 240 versus 224. ROPs: 48 versus 112. RT cores: none versus 28. Pixel rate: 52.56 GPixel/s versus 268.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 210.2 GTexel/s versus 537.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 5.046 TFLOPS versus 17.20 TFLOPS. FP16: none recorded versus 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 375 W versus 225 W. Slot width: triple-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 750 W versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0. DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan: 1.2.175 versus 1.4. Release date: 2014-05-27 versus 2022-10-11. Launch MSRP: 2,999 USD versus 289 USD.