Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000: two end-of-life GPUs from different eras, separated by nearly a decade of architecture evolution. The data shows a decisive generational shift, with the Arc A750 winning both head-to-head benchmark matchups by overwhelming margins, while the Quadro K6000 retains advantages in memory capacity and professional feature heritage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is starkly one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A750 scores 98,554 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K6000’s 23,749 points. That is a 315% delta, meaning the Arc A750 delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap stems from fundamental architectural differences: the Arc A750’s 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 performance dwarfs the Quadro K6000’s 5.196 TFLOPS, and the newer GPU’s 6nm process node versus 28nm creates a massive density advantage.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Arc A750 scores 85,631 points, while the Quadro K6000 manages only 25,409 points — a 237% delta. Vulkan is a modern API that the Kepler architecture was never designed to fully exploit; the Quadro K6000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, but the Arc A750 runs Vulkan 1.4 with hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shaders. The Arc A750’s 28 dedicated ray tracing cores and 3584 shading units simply overwhelm the older GPU’s 2880 shaders, which lack any RT hardware.

Where the Arc A750 wins by smaller margins, the comparisons still favor Intel. The average benchmark score for the Arc A750 is 20,582, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K6000’s average is 19,030, sitting at the 63rd percentile. That 1,552-point gap in average score, roughly 8.2% higher, reflects consistent superiority across the limited overlapping test suite. The Arc A750’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (20,556, 0.1% apart) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534, 0.2% apart), while the Quadro K6000 sits alongside the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1%).

Notably, the Quadro K6000 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head set. The wins count is 2 for the Arc A750 and 0 for the Quadro K6000. The only tests where the Quadro K6000 was even measured — Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan — show it trailing the Arc A750 in the two shared tests. The Metal score of 7,932 is not comparable to any Arc A750 metric, but it underscores that the K6000’s era predates modern compute APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K6000’s 5.196 TFLOPS. The Arc A750 is also capable of 34.41 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), a feature the Quadro K6000 lacks entirely.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is 78% higher despite the smaller capacity and narrower bus.

Q: Does the Quadro K6000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GK110B chip is based on Kepler architecture with no ray tracing cores listed. The Arc A750 includes 28 dedicated RT cores, which explains its Vulkan benchmark dominance.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: Both cards have a 225 W TDP and require a 550 W suggested PSU. However, the Arc A750 achieves far higher performance within that envelope, with 17.20 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS from the same power draw.

Q: What API features separate the two?

A: The Arc A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The Arc A750 also supports newer display outputs including HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0, while the K6000 uses DVI and DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores rank them globally?

A: The Arc A750 has an average benchmark score of 20,582, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K6000’s 19,030 average puts it in the 63rd percentile, a modest but consistent gap.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip built on TSMC’s 6nm process, packing 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K6000’s GK110B chip uses TSMC’s 28nm node, with 7,080 million transistors spread across a much larger 561 mm² die — a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Arc A750 achieves over four times the transistor density, enabling more compute units in a smaller physical footprint.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Arc A750 has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs, alongside 28 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K6000 offers 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and only 48 ROPs. While the K6000 has more TMUs, its pixel rate of 54.12 GPixel/s is dramatically lower than the Arc A750’s 268.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors Intel: 537.6 GTexel/s versus 216.5 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational progress. The Arc A750 runs at a 2050 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the Quadro K6000 operates at just 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. Memory clocks are equally divergent: the Arc A750 uses 2000 MHz GDDR6 (16 Gbps effective), while the K6000 uses 1502 MHz GDDR5 (6 Gbps effective). The Arc A750’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the bandwidth of the K6000’s PCIe 3.0 x16 bus.

The Arc A750 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the Alchemist generation (Arc 7), succeeding Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage. The Quadro K6000 uses Kepler architecture in the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. This places the K6000 roughly three generations behind in NVIDIA’s own lineup, let alone relative to Intel’s modern discrete GPU effort.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A750 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 in every measurable compute benchmark. For anyone choosing between these two for raw performance, the Arc A750 is the only rational pick. Its 315% lead in OpenCL and 237% lead in Vulkan are not marginal differences — they represent different performance tiers entirely.

The Quadro K6000 does retain two practical advantages. First, its 12 GB memory capacity exceeds the Arc A750’s 8 GB, which could matter for workloads that require large datasets resident in VRAM. Second, its 384-bit bus and dual-DVI outputs may appeal to legacy professional environments, though the Arc A750’s HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 are far more modern.

However, the Arc A750’s higher bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s) compensates for the smaller capacity in most throughput-bound tasks. The Arc A750 also supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the K6000 is stuck with DirectX 12 (11_1) and older Vulkan. For gaming, ray tracing, or any contemporary compute workload, the Quadro K6000 is effectively obsolete.

The benchmark percentiles reinforce this: the Arc A750 sits in the 66th percentile globally versus the K6000’s 63rd. Both are end-of-life products, but the Arc A750’s launch MSRP of 289 USD versus the K6000’s launch MSRP of 5,265 USD shows the price-performance gulf at original release. The K6000 was a workstation card priced for professional use, while the Arc A750 targeted mainstream consumers. If the choice is between these two today, the Arc A750 offers superior performance across the board, and only a specific need for 12 GB VRAM or legacy DVI outputs would push a buyer toward the Quadro.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc A750 | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 |

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

| Chip | DG2-512 | GK110B |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Kepler |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 7) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 21,700 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 406 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 53.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2050 MHz | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 902 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 224 | 240 |

| ROPs | 112 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 28 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 268.8 GPixel/s | 54.12 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 537.6 GTexel/s | 216.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 17.20 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 34.41 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 225 W | 225 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Battlemage | Quadro Maxwell |