Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The Intel Arc A750 and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 occupy unusual positions in the database: both are end-of-life, both carry 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, and neither was designed to compete with the other. The A750 is a gaming-focused discrete card built on Intel's first serious dedicated GPU architecture, while the Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation part from NVIDIA's Turing era. Their benchmark records show a genuinely split outcome, six wins to four in NVIDIA's favor by test count, but with Intel taking the largest margins on record. The overall averages tell the same story from a different angle: the A750's average benchmark score of 20582 sits in the 66th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro RTX 4000's 17789 lands at the 61st percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A750's victories cluster around modern graphics workloads and general compute throughput. It wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DirectX 12 test with a score of 2612 against 1873, a gap of roughly 40 percent, and it takes the Geekbench OpenCL run by a similar margin, 98554 to 74540. In the PassMark DirectX 12 suite it posts 70 versus 52, about a third ahead. Add the Geekbench Vulkan result, where the A750's 85631 beats the Quadro's 78844 by close to nine percent, and the pattern is clear: when the workload is contemporary, DirectX 12 or Vulkan-based, or heavily dependent on raw shader throughput, the Arc card leads.

The Quadro RTX 4000 wins the legacy and 2D-oriented tests. It takes PassMark DirectX 9 by a modest margin (205 versus 181), DirectX 10 by a much larger one (108 versus 65), and DirectX 11 decisively (128 versus 72, nearly double the Arc's score). Its PassMark G3D result of 15117 beats the A750's 12534 by about 17 percent, and its GPU compute score of 6176 tops the A750's 5368 by roughly 13 percent. Even the 2D test goes to the Quadro, 846 to 732. The practical read: the Quadro holds up in older game engines and general desktop graphics tasks, while the A750 is the stronger card for current-generation rendering loads.

Architecture Differences

These two chips come from entirely different design philosophies, separated by four years of release timing. The Arc A750 arrived on 2022-10-11, built on TSMC's 6 nm process using the DG2-512 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist (Arc 7) generation. The Quadro RTX 4000 launched on 2018-11-12, using the TU104 chip on the Turing architecture, and despite the series field describing it as "GeForce 40-series" it belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) professional line.

The process gap shows up directly in the physical data. The A750's die measures 406 mm² and packs 21,700 million transistors for a density of 53.4M per square millimeter. The Quadro's die is larger at 545 mm² but carries fewer transistors, 13,600 million, at roughly half the density, 25.0M per square millimeter. Intel's newer node lets it fit substantially more hardware into a smaller piece of silicon.

The specification differences follow. The A750 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The Quadro has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 36 RT cores, plus 288 tensor cores, a feature the A750 simply does not list. Clocks run higher on the Intel card: 2050 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost versus 1005 MHz and 1545 MHz on the NVIDIA part. The raw output numbers are lopsided accordingly. The A750 delivers 268.8 GPixel/s, 537.6 GTexel/s, and 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Quadro manages 98.88 GPixel/s, 222.5 GTexel/s, and 7.119 TFLOPS. In FP16 the split is 34.41 TFLOPS against 14.24 TFLOPS. That FP32 figure is nearly two and a half times higher on the Arc card.

Memory is the equalizer. Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but the A750 runs it at 16 Gbps effective for 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro runs at 13 Gbps effective for 416.0 GB/s.

Power and form factor diverge sharply. The A750 has a 225 W TDP, needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, occupies a dual-slot footprint, and carries a 550 W suggested PSU rating. The Quadro is far more economical: a 160 W TDP, a single 8-pin connector, a single-slot width, and a 450 W suggested PSU. At 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, the Quadro is also physically compact, dimensions the database does not record for the A750.

Platform support differs too. The A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16; the Quadro is PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs split between Intel's single HDMI 2.1 plus three DisplayPort 2.0 and NVIDIA's three DisplayPort 1.4a plus one USB Type-C. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Lineage also differs: the A750 succeeded Intel's Xe Graphics and hands off to Battlemage, while the Quadro RTX 4000 followed Quadro Volta and was succeeded by Workstation Ampere.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded results split four to six, and the size of each side's wins is what makes the matchup interesting.

Intel's wins are the headline numbers. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DirectX 12 test, arguably the most representative modern gaming benchmark in the set, goes to the A750 2612 to 1873: a lead of about 39.5 percent. Geekbench OpenCL is nearly as one-sided, 98554 versus 74540, a 32 percent margin driven by the Arc card's much higher compute throughput. PassMark DirectX 12 favors the A750 70 to 52, a 34.6 percent gap. The Geekbench Vulkan result is closer, 85631 to 78844, but still an 8.6 percent Intel win, suggesting the gap narrows when the Quadro's mature drivers come into play.

NVIDIA's wins are smaller individually but more numerous. PassMark DirectX 11 is the Quadro's best result, 128 versus 72, meaning the Arc card delivers only about 56 percent of the Quadro's score in that legacy suite. DirectX 10 follows the same shape: 108 versus 65, a 39.8 percent deficit for the A750. DirectX 9 goes to the Quadro 205 to 181, an 11.7 percent edge, and the 2D test lands at 846 against 732, 13.5 percent in NVIDIA's favor. The PassMark G3D overall graphics score favors the Quadro 15117 to 12534, a 17.1 percent difference, and GPU compute goes to NVIDIA 6176 to 5368, 13.1 percent ahead.

The context from each card's rival list sharpens the picture. The A750's average of 20582 puts it essentially level with the Intel Arc B570 (20556, within 0.1 percent), the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 0.2 percent behind), and the Quadro M4000M (20480), with only the Radeon R9 M390X edging past it. The Quadro RTX 4000's 17789 places it in a cluster with the Radeon HD 7790, the GeForce RTX 4060, the Radeon 780M, and the Radeon Pro 560, all within about 1.4 percent of its average.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For modern gaming, DirectX 12 and Vulkan rendering, and OpenCL compute workloads, the Arc A750 is the stronger card by large margins, backed by substantially higher shader counts, clocks, and theoretical throughput. Its 66th percentile placement versus the Quadro's 61st reflects that overall advantage, even though the Quadro wins more individual tests.

The Quadro RTX 4000 makes its case on efficiency and breadth. A 160 W single-slot card that beats a 225 W dual-slot card in six of ten recorded tests, including all the legacy DirectX suites, general 2D graphics, and PassMark's overall compute metric, is a versatile part. Anyone running older software, tight on slots or power, or needing the listed 288 tensor cores should note where the Quadro still wins. Buyers focused purely on current-generation performance should pick the A750; those prioritizing legacy compatibility and low-power breadth should pick the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the modern DirectX 12 benchmark? A: The Arc A750, scoring 2612 versus 1873 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, a lead of about 39.5 percent.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient in design? A: The Quadro RTX 4000, with a 160 W TDP, single-slot width, and one 8-pin connector, versus the A750's 225 W TDP, dual-slot width, and 6-pin plus 8-pin connectors.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare? A: Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but the A750 delivers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth against the Quadro's 416.0 GB/s.

Q: Do they support the same APIs? A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card leads in raw compute throughput? A: The A750, with 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 against the Quadro's 7.119 TFLOPS, though the Quadro wins the PassMark GPU compute test 6176 to 5368.

Q: Are both cards still in production? A: No, both are recorded as end-of-life.