Intel Arc A750 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Intel Arc A750 and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation occupy different corners of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The A750, an end-of-life Alchemist part from 2022, posts the higher aggregate score in modern DirectX 12 and compute workloads, while the RTX 2000 Ada, an active workstation card from 2024, counters with decisive wins across legacy DirectX tests and general-purpose throughput. With the A750 winning 3 of 10 head-to-head benchmarks and the RTX 2000 Ada winning 7, the choice hinges on workload priority rather than outright superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 dominates in scenarios that stress raw fill-rate and modern API efficiency. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2612 versus 1767 for the RTX 2000 Ada—a 47.8% advantage—shows a clear edge in contemporary game engines and ray-tracing workloads. The A750 also wins Geekbench OpenCL (98554 vs 78074, +26.2%) and Geekbench Vulkan (85631 vs 83360, +2.7%), indicating strong compute throughput under both general-purpose and graphics-oriented APIs. These three wins align with the A750’s higher peak FP32 rate of 17.20 TFLOPS and its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is double the RTX 2000 Ada’s 256.0 GB/s.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins every PassMark test except none—it takes all seven of the remaining benchmarks. Its PassMark G3D score of 16927 eclipses the A750’s 12534 by 26%, a substantial gap in overall 3D rendering performance. The largest deltas come in PassMark DirectX 11, where the RTX 2000 Ada scores 138 versus 72 (47.8% higher), and PassMark G2D at 1072 versus 732 (31.7% higher). Even in DirectX 12, where the A750’s modern architecture should shine, the RTX 2000 Ada edges ahead 71 to 70, a marginal 1.4% win. Compute also favors NVIDIA: PassMark GPU Compute shows 7834 vs 5368, a 31.5% margin that suggests the RTX 2000 Ada handles sustained parallel workloads more efficiently despite its lower peak TFLOPS.

The split is clear: Intel wins future-facing APIs and high-bandwidth scenarios; NVIDIA wins legacy compatibility, 2D performance, and compute consistency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Arc A750 uses the DG2-512 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It packs 21,700 million transistors across a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC’s 5 nm process, integrating 18,900 million transistors into a much smaller 159 mm² die—a density of 118.9M per mm². This density advantage explains how NVIDIA achieves competitive performance with far fewer resources.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The A750 fields 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 112 raster output units (ROPs), against the RTX 2000 Ada’s 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The A750’s 112 ROPs drive its pixel rate of 268.8 GPixel/s, over 2.6 times the RTX 2000 Ada’s 102.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate similarly favors Intel at 537.6 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s. Ray tracing cores number 28 on the A750 versus 22 on the RTX 2000 Ada, but NVIDIA counters with 88 tensor cores—hardware Intel lacks entirely, which may explain compute differences in AI-adjacent workloads.

Memory subsystems tell a complementary story. The A750 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada doubles capacity to 16 GB GDDR6 but halves the bus to 128-bit, resulting in 256.0 GB/s. Clock speeds favor Intel at base (2050 MHz vs 1620 MHz) and boost (2400 MHz vs 2130 MHz). Power envelopes differ massively: the A750 draws 225 W with a 550 W suggested PSU and dual power connectors, while the RTX 2000 Ada sips 70 W with no power connectors and a 250 W PSU suggestion. The A750 uses PCIe 4.0 x16; the RTX 2000 Ada uses x8. Display outputs also differ—Intel offers HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while NVIDIA provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test delivers the largest single win for Intel. The A750’s 2612 score beats the RTX 2000 Ada’s 1767 by 47.8%, a margin that dwarfs any other difference in the dataset. This test likely stresses memory bandwidth and raster throughput, where the A750’s 512.0 GB/s and 112 ROPs provide a structural advantage. Geekbench OpenCL shows a 26.2% win (98554 vs 78074), reflecting the A750’s higher FP32 ceiling. Geekbench Vulkan is closer—85631 vs 83360, just 2.7%—suggesting that Intel’s Vulkan driver maturity narrows but does not erase its lead.

NVIDIA’s wins are more numerous but vary in magnitude. PassMark DirectX 11 is the standout: 138 vs 72, a 47.8% margin that exactly mirrors Intel’s Steel Nomad advantage. This legacy API test favors NVIDIA’s mature driver stack and suggests the RTX 2000 Ada handles older rendering paths with far greater efficiency. PassMark G2D (1072 vs 732, +31.7%) and PassMark GPU Compute (7834 vs 5368, +31.5%) show similar gaps, indicating broad strength in 2D and general compute. PassMark G3D at 16927 vs 12534 (+26%) reinforces the pattern. DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests also go NVIDIA’s way: 216 vs 181 (+16.2%) and 82 vs 65 (+20.7%), respectively. The only near-tie is PassMark DirectX 12, where NVIDIA wins 71 to 70 by 1.4%—a statistical coin flip that underscores how close these cards are in modern API performance despite the A750’s 3DMark advantage.

Aggregate scores reflect the split: the A750 averages 20582 across benchmarks, landing at the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 2000 Ada averages 18954 at the 63rd percentile. The A750’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc B570 (20556, +0.1%), while the RTX 2000 Ada’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, -0.4%).

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher peak FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc A750 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 12.00 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation. This 5.2 TFLOPS difference aligns with the A750’s wins in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: Why does the RTX 2000 Ada win PassMark G3D despite lower raw specs?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada scores 16927 in PassMark G3D versus 12534 for the A750, a 26% margin. Its 16 GB memory capacity, lower power draw (70 W vs 225 W), and Ada Lovelace architecture likely compensate for fewer shading units (2816 vs 3584) and lower bandwidth (256.0 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s).

Q: Which card is better for DirectX 12 gaming?

A: The data is mixed. The A750 wins 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 47.8% (2612 vs 1767), but the RTX 2000 Ada wins PassMark DirectX 12 by 1.4% (71 vs 70). The A750’s higher bandwidth and ROP count suggest an edge in demanding titles, but NVIDIA’s driver maturity keeps it competitive.

Q: How do memory capacities differ and does it matter?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB GDDR6, double the A750’s 8 GB, but the A750 has a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, giving it 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 256.0 GB/s. Capacity favors NVIDIA for large datasets; bandwidth favors Intel for throughput.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada’s 5 nm process achieves 118.9M transistors per mm², over twice the A750’s 53.4M per mm². This allows NVIDIA to fit 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die versus Intel’s 406 mm².

Q: Which card has higher power requirements?

A: The Intel Arc A750 requires 225 W TDP with a suggested 550 W PSU and both a 6-pin and 8-pin connector. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada runs on 70 W, needs only a 250 W PSU, and uses no power connectors.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Arc A750 if your workload prioritizes modern DirectX 12 rendering, high memory bandwidth, or raw FP32 compute. Its 47.8% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 26.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL make it the stronger pick for current-generation game engines and compute tasks that scale with memory bandwidth. The A750’s 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 112 ROPs are decisive in fill-rate-bound scenarios, and its 66th percentile ranking versus the RTX 2000 Ada’s 63rd confirms a slight overall edge in average benchmark score (20582 vs 18954). This card is end-of-life, but the data shows it still competes well in forward-looking APIs.

Choose the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation if you need legacy API performance, 2D throughput, or double the memory capacity. Its wins across six PassMark tests—including a 47.8% margin in DirectX 11 and 31.7% in G2D—demonstrate superior compatibility with older software stacks. The 16 GB frame buffer is twice the A750’s 8 GB, which matters for large texture sets or compute datasets that exceed 8 GB. The 70 W power draw with no external connectors also enables deployment in systems where the A750’s 225 W requirement would be prohibitive. The RTX 2000 Ada’s 88 tensor cores, absent on the A750, may also sway AI-adjacent workloads.

The data does not crown a single winner. The A750 leads in 3 of 10 tests with an average score 8.6% higher, while the RTX 2000 Ada wins 7 of 10 with dominance in legacy and 2D tasks. For modern gaming and high-bandwidth compute, take the Intel. For compatibility, capacity, and efficiency, take the NVIDIA.