Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The Intel Arc A750 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 represent two vastly different eras of GPU design. The Arc A750 is a modern Alchemist-generation part built on a 6 nm process, while the Quadro K5200 is a Kepler-generation workstation card from 2014 built on 28 nm. The benchmark data shows a clear generational gulf, with the Arc A750 winning both shared head-to-head tests by enormous margins. However, the Quadro K5200 still holds relevance in legacy professional environments, as indicated by its 64th percentile ranking versus the Arc A750’s 66th. The data suggests these cards are not direct competitors in most modern workloads, but their comparative positioning reveals stark architectural and performance divides.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 is the dominant performer in every benchmark category shared between the two cards. In the two head-to-head tests available, the Arc A750 wins both outright. The most decisive victory comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Arc A750 scores 98,554 against the Quadro K5200’s 19,024, a delta of 418.1%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a multi-generational leap in compute throughput. The Vulkan test shows a similar trend, with the Arc A750 scoring 85,631 versus 20,180, a 324.3% advantage. These results indicate that for any modern compute or graphics API workload, the Arc A750 is categorically superior.

The Quadro K5200’s strengths are not evident in raw performance metrics but rather in its historical positioning and specific feature set. Its 64th percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests it remains competitive with a broad swath of the market, despite its age. The card’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory matches the Arc A750’s capacity, and its 256-bit bus width is identical. However, the memory bandwidth tells a different story: the K5200 delivers 192.3 GB/s, while the Arc A750 delivers 512.0 GB/s. The Quadro’s advantage lies in its legacy display outputs — 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 — which are absent on the Arc A750’s modern 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 configuration. This makes the K5200 a practical choice for older professional setups with DVI-dependent hardware.

In terms of raw shading power, the Arc A750’s 3584 shading units and 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 performance dwarf the K5200’s 2304 shading units and 3.553 TFLOPS. The pixel and texture rates follow suit: 268.8 GPixel/s and 537.6 GTexel/s for the Arc A750 versus 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s for the K5200. There is no benchmark category where the K5200 wins; its only "win" is in power consumption, with a 150 W TDP compared to the Arc A750’s 225 W, and its smaller 1x 6-pin power connector requirement.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A750 is the superior GPU for virtually all modern workloads. Its 418.1% lead in OpenCL and 324.3% lead in Vulkan are not just wins; they are decisive generational overhauls. Any user selecting between these two for compute, gaming, or modern content creation should choose the Arc A750. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth provides over 2.6 times the memory bandwidth of the K5200. The Arc A750 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, making the Arc A750 future-proof in API support.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is only the sensible choice for a narrow set of legacy scenarios. Its 150 W TDP is lower, making it easier to cool and power with a 450 W suggested PSU versus the Arc A750’s 550 W. The dual DVI outputs are a unique selling point for older monitors or industrial equipment. However, its 3.553 TFLOPS FP32 performance is a fraction of the Arc A750’s 17.20 TFLOPS, and its 28 nm process node results in a larger 561 mm² die despite housing only 7,080 million transistors versus the Arc A750’s 21,700 million on a 406 mm² die. The K5200’s percentile ranking of 64 is only two points below the Arc A750’s 66, but this aggregate figure masks the massive disparity in modern API performance.

For a professional workstation in 2024, the Arc A750 is the clear choice. For a legacy system requiring DVI output or specific Kepler-era driver support, the K5200 remains functional but is severely outclassed. The verdict is simple: the Arc A750 wins on every measurable performance metric, while the K5200 only wins on power efficiency and legacy connectivity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two tests, and the Intel Arc A750 wins both by staggering margins. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the Arc A750 scoring 98,554 against the Quadro K5200’s 19,024. This represents a delta of 418.1%, meaning the Arc A750 is over five times faster in this compute workload. OpenCL is a cross-platform API used for general-purpose GPU computing, and this result suggests the Arc A750 handles parallel compute tasks with far greater efficiency. The Arc A750’s 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 34.41 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) performance provide the raw horsepower, while the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS FP32 and lack of FP16 support (listed as null) leave it at a severe disadvantage.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar pattern. The Arc A750 scores 85,631, while the K5200 manages 20,180, a delta of 324.3%. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the Arc A750’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the K5200’s Vulkan 1.2.175 partially explains the gap. The Arc A750’s 28 ray tracing cores also contribute to its modern API proficiency, a feature entirely absent from the K5200. The 256-bit memory bus is shared, but the Arc A750’s 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the K5200’s 192.3 GB/s ensures data flows much faster, reducing bottlenecks in memory-intensive Vulkan workloads.

There are no other shared benchmarks in the data set. The Arc A750 also has a suite of Passmark tests (DirectX 10, 11, 12, 9, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute) and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2612, but the K5200 has no corresponding scores. The Arc A750’s average benchmark score is 20,582, which is 5.0% higher than the K5200’s 19,602. This aggregate delta is modest compared to the head-to-head deltas, indicating that the K5200 is competitive in some legacy workloads not captured in the shared tests. However, in the two tests that directly compare them, the Arc A750 is overwhelmingly faster.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The Intel Arc A750 is dramatically faster, scoring 98,554 versus the Quadro K5200’s 19,024, a 418.1% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 support ray tracing?

A: No, the K5200 has no ray tracing cores (listed as null), while the Intel Arc A750 features 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc A750 offers 512.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the Quadro K5200 offers 192.3 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Intel Arc A750 ranks at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 ranks at the 64th percentile.

Q: Are these cards comparable in power consumption?

A: No, the Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP requiring a 450 W PSU and a single 6-pin connector, while the Arc A750 has a 225 W TDP requiring a 550 W PSU and both 6-pin and 8-pin connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX versions?

A: The Intel Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is profound, reflecting nearly a decade of semiconductor advancement. The Intel Arc A750 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-512 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This allows for 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This older process houses 7,080 million transistors on a larger 561 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 12.6M per mm². The Arc A750’s density is over four times higher, enabling far more complex logic in a smaller physical area.

The memory subsystems are generations apart. The Arc A750 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), delivering only 192.3 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the newer memory standard gives the Arc A750 a 2.66x bandwidth advantage. The compute units also differ fundamentally: the Arc A750 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, while the K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and only 48 ROPs. The Arc A750’s pixel rate of 268.8 GPixel/s and texture rate of 537.6 GTexel/s are 7.3x and 3.6x higher than the K5200’s respective 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds show a similar generational leap. The Arc A750 runs at a base of 2050 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, while the K5200 operates at a base of 667 MHz and boosts to 771 MHz. This is a 3x difference in raw clock speed, contributing to the Arc A750’s 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 versus the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS. The Arc A750 also supports FP16 at 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability entirely absent from the K5200. Feature-wise, the Arc A750 includes 28 ray tracing cores, support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and outputs via 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. The K5200 has no ray tracing, supports only DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, and offers legacy 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Arc A750 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the K5200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the potential host bandwidth. Finally, the power profile differs: the Arc A750 draws 225 W with a 550 W suggested PSU and dual connectors, while the K5200 draws 150 W with a 450 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin connector. The Arc A750 is physically dual-slot, as is the K5200, but the K5200’s dimensions are specified at 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Arc A750’s are not listed.