Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and Intel Arc A750 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by four years of architectural evolution and targeting distinct market segments. The Quadro RTX 5000, launched in August 2018, is a professional workstation card built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, while the Arc A750, released in October 2022, is Intel's consumer-focused Alchemist part on a 6 nm node. Benchmark data shows the Quadro RTX 5000 wins 6 of 9 head-to-head tests, including a dominant 24.6% lead in Passmark G3D, yet the Arc A750 counters with a 19.8% victory in Geekbench OpenCL. Both cards sit near the 67th percentile of all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of 21629 for NVIDIA and 20582 for Intel, making this a closer contest than their different origins might suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 holds a 5.1% advantage in average benchmark score, posting 21629 compared to the Intel Arc A750's 20582. This places both cards within 1 percentile point of each other in the global GPU rankings, at 67% and 66% respectively.

Q: How do the two cards compare in DirectX 11 performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 is dramatically ahead in Passmark DirectX 11, scoring 140 versus 72 for the Arc A750, a 94.4% delta. This is the largest performance gap in any benchmark between the two cards.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A750 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Arc A750 wins 3 of 9 head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL (98554 vs 78999, a 19.8% lead), Passmark DirectX 12 (70 vs 59, a 15.7% lead), and Passmark G2D (732 vs 709, a 3.1% lead).

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A750 provides 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is 14.3% higher than the Quadro RTX 5000's 448.0 GB/s. However, the NVIDIA card has 16 GB of memory versus 8 GB on the Intel part.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A750, built on TSMC's 6 nm process, packs 53.4 million transistors per square millimeter, more than double the Quadro RTX 5000's 25.0M / mm² density on 12 nm. The Intel chip has 21,700 million transistors across a 406 mm² die, while NVIDIA's TU104 has 13,600 million on 545 mm².

Q: How do the cards rank against their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000's closest rival is the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which scores within 1% (21856 vs 21629). The Arc A750's nearest competitor is the Intel Arc B570, just 0.1% behind at 20556, with the RTX 3070 Mobile only 0.2% ahead at 20534.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the choice for legacy DirectX workloads and compute-heavy professional tasks, while the Intel Arc A750 offers superior raw compute throughput in modern APIs. For users running DirectX 11 applications or requiring OpenGL compatibility, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the only sensible pick—its 94.4% lead in Passmark DirectX 11 and 73.8% lead in DirectX 10 are insurmountable. The Quadro also dominates in Passmark G3D (15616 vs 12534, a 24.6% lead) and GPU compute (6525 vs 5368, a 21.6% lead), making it the stronger all-around performer in the aggregate benchmark suite.

However, the Arc A750's 19.8% victory in Geekbench OpenCL (98554 vs 78999) signals that its newer architecture, with 3584 shading units and 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3072 units and 11.15 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, delivers better raw compute in OpenCL environments. The Arc also wins the only DirectX 12 test, posting 70 versus 59 (a 15.7% lead), which may indicate better forward-looking API performance. The Quadro RTX 5000 counters with a 7.8% win in Geekbench Vulkan (92309 vs 85631).

For professional workstation users dependent on certified drivers and legacy API support, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the data-backed choice. For developers or enthusiasts prioritizing OpenCL compute and DirectX 12 throughput, the Arc A750 offers compelling advantages despite its lower overall average score. The Arc A750's launch MSRP is 289 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire comparison belongs to the Quadro RTX 5000 in Passmark DirectX 11, where it scores 140 against the Arc A750's 72, a 94.4% delta. This is followed closely by its 73.8% advantage in DirectX 10 (113 vs 65). These results indicate that NVIDIA's Turing architecture maintains exceptional efficiency in older DirectX pipelines, likely due to mature driver optimization and hardware design tailored to the API era in which it was released.

In Passmark G3D, the Quadro RTX 5000 posts 15616 versus 12534 for Intel, a 24.6% lead that constitutes its second-largest victory. This general 3D performance test shows the NVIDIA card delivering substantially higher overall graphics throughput. The Quadro also wins Passmark GPU compute by 21.6% (6525 vs 5368), suggesting its 384 tensor cores and 48 RT cores provide meaningful compute acceleration beyond raw shader output.

The Arc A750's strongest result comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 98554 against 78999 for the Quadro, a 19.8% delta in Intel's favor. This aligns with the Arc's higher FP32 throughput (17.20 TFLOPS vs 11.15 TFLOPS) and suggests the newer Xe-HPG architecture scales better in compute-heavy workloads. The Arc also wins Passmark DirectX 12 by 15.7% (70 vs 59), indicating that its hardware is better optimized for the latest Microsoft API.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 5000 takes a modest 7.8% win (92309 vs 85631), while Passmark DirectX 9 shows a 7.7% NVIDIA advantage (195 vs 181). The closest contest is Passmark G2D, where the Arc A750 edges ahead by just 3.1% (732 vs 709). Overall, the Quadro RTX 5000 wins 6 tests to the Arc A750's 3, but the margin distribution reveals that NVIDIA's victories tend to be larger in legacy APIs while Intel's wins concentrate in modern compute paths.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge most sharply in memory configuration. The Quadro RTX 5000 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A750 provides 8 GB on the same bus width but achieves 512.0 GB/s due to faster 16 Gbps effective memory speed versus 14 Gbps. The NVIDIA card's memory runs at 1750 MHz base, while Intel's operates at 2000 MHz.

Shader resources favor Intel: 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 112 ROPs for the Arc A750, compared to 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the Quadro RTX 5000. This translates to higher theoretical rates for Intel: 268.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 537.6 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 116.2 GPixel/s and 348.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The Quadro RTX 5000 includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, while the Arc A750 lists 28 RT cores and no tensor core count.

Clock speeds also differ: the Arc A750 runs at 2050 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the Quadro RTX 5000 operates at 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost. Both cards have a 230 W TDP (NVIDIA) and 225 W TDP (Intel), use dual-slot cooling, require 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggest a 550 W PSU. The Quadro RTX 5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ: NVIDIA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C, while Intel offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro RTX 5000 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The TU104 chip contains 13,600 million transistors across a 545 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per square millimeter. This architecture introduced dedicated RT cores (48) and tensor cores (384) for ray tracing and AI acceleration, features that were groundbreaking at its 2018 release. The Quadro generation spans "Quadro Turing (Tx000)" and succeeds the Quadro Volta line, with Workstation Ampere as its successor.

The Intel Arc A750 employs the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, part of the Alchemist generation under the "Arc 7" family. The DG2-512 chip packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, achieving 53.4M transistors per square millimeter—more than double NVIDIA's density. This architecture represents Intel's first serious discrete GPU effort, succeeding Xe Graphics and preceding Battlemage. The Arc A750 has 28 RT cores but no tensor core equivalent listed in the data.

The process node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 6 nm, representing a full generation of manufacturing advancement. This explains how Intel fits more transistors (21,700M vs 13,600M) on a smaller die (406 mm² vs 545 mm²) while also enabling higher clock speeds (2400 MHz boost vs 1815 MHz boost). Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity exists despite the architectural gulf.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins for: Legacy DirectX workloads. The 94.4% lead in Passmark DirectX 11 and 73.8% lead in DirectX 10 make it the definitive choice for applications still using these APIs. Its 24.6% advantage in Passmark G3D also positions it as the stronger general-purpose 3D renderer in the aggregate test suite. The 21.6% GPU compute win (6525 vs 5368) suggests its tensor cores provide tangible compute benefits in certain workloads. The 7.8% Vulkan victory (92309 vs 85631) adds another API where NVIDIA maintains superiority. For professional environments prioritizing OpenGL compatibility and established driver maturity, the Quadro RTX 5000's 7.7% DirectX 9 win (195 vs 181) rounds out a comprehensive legacy API sweep.

Intel Arc A750 wins for: OpenCL compute and modern API throughput. The 19.8% Geekbench OpenCL victory (98554 vs 78999) is the single largest compute win in the comparison, driven by its 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 output versus 11.15 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The 15.7% DirectX 12 win (70 vs 59) indicates better optimization for the current Microsoft API, which matters for newer games and applications. The 3.1% G2D advantage (732 vs 709) shows slightly better 2D performance. With 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 448.0 GB/s, the Arc A750 also provides faster memory throughput, which may benefit bandwidth-sensitive workloads despite its smaller 8 GB capacity. The Arc's higher pixel rate (268.8 GPixel/s vs 116.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (537.6 GTexel/s vs 348.5 GTexel/s) further support its win in fill-rate-bound scenarios. For users running OpenCL compute kernels or targeting DirectX 12 exclusively, the Arc A750's architecture offers measurable advantages.