Key takeaways
- Arc A750: $289 / 100 = $2.89 per performance point.
- RX 6700 XT: $479 / 122 = about $3.93 per performance point.
The RX 6700 XT is the better graphics card for most buyers: it is generally faster, far more consistent across older games, and has 12 GB of VRAM versus the Arc A750’s 8 GB, so it is the safer pick for 1440p and for anyone who plays a broad game library. The Arc A750 only makes sense if it is clearly cheaper, your system supports Resizable BAR, and you mostly play modern DirectX 12 and Vulkan titles at 1080p.
Both cards now live mainly on the used and clearance market. The RX 6700 XT launched in March 2021 at $479 as AMD’s 1440p card. The Arc A750 launched in October 2022 at $289 as part of Intel’s first discrete gaming lineup, Alchemist. Since then the Arc B580 and the Radeon RX 9060 XT have replaced them as current budget options, but these older cards can still be good value at the right price.
Head-to-Head Specs
| Specification | RX 6700 XT | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Generation 12.7 (Alchemist) |
| Release date | 3 March 2021 | 12 October 2022 |
| Launch MSRP | $479 | $289 |
| Shader units | 2560 | 3584 |
| Boost clock | 2581 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Process | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| TDP | 230 W | 225 W |
| Memory | 12 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR6 |
| Memory bus | 192-bit | 256-bit |
| Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Cache | 3 MB L2 / 96 MB L3 | 16 MB L2 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DP 2.0 |
The Arc A750 looks strong on paper, with more shader units, a wider 256-bit bus and higher raw bandwidth. The RX 6700 XT counters with a large 96 MB Infinity Cache, which reduces how often it has to go to VRAM, and with mature drivers that extract more of its theoretical performance in real games.
Raster Gaming
Results for this pairing vary more than most because Arc performance depends heavily on the graphics API. In launch-era testing from outlets such as Hardware Unboxed and TechPowerUp, the A750 generally landed around RTX 3060 level, while the RX 6700 XT sat clearly above the RTX 3060. Aggregate comparison data reflects the same split: one site shows the RX 6700 XT only about 10% ahead in DirectX 12 tests, but more than twice as fast in DirectX 11 tests. Overall, a reasonable expectation is that the RX 6700 XT is roughly 15-30% faster in modern games, with a much larger lead in older DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 titles.
As an approximate example that varies with game, settings, CPU and patch, a DirectX 12 title running around 60 FPS on the A750 at 1440p would run around 70-78 FPS on the RX 6700 XT. In an older DX11 game the difference can be considerably larger.
The driver question
Intel’s driver team made big strides after launch, especially with DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 performance, and the A750 is a far better card today than it was in late 2022. Even so, Alchemist remains more inconsistent than RDNA 2: some games run very well, others underperform, and new releases occasionally need driver updates before they run smoothly. Anyone who plays older or niche titles should weigh this heavily.
Resizable BAR is mandatory for Arc
Arc cards lose a large share of their performance without Resizable BAR (also called Smart Access Memory on AMD platforms). Most Intel 10th-generation and newer and AMD Ryzen 3000 and newer systems support it, but older platforms may not. The RX 6700 XT benefits from Resizable BAR but works well without it, which makes it the safer pick for older PCs.
Ray Tracing and Upscaling
Ray tracing is the A750’s one clear technical strength. Intel’s first-generation RT units generally outperform RDNA 2’s ray accelerators, and in RT-heavy titles the A750 can match or beat the RX 6700 XT, though its 8 GB frame buffer can become the limit when ray tracing and high textures are combined. Neither card is fast enough for heavy ray tracing at 1440p without significant compromises.
On upscaling, the A750 supports XeSS running on its dedicated XMX matrix units, which generally gives better image quality than FSR 2/3 upscaling. Intel has also extended XeSS 2 frame generation to Arc A-series cards in supported titles. The RX 6700 XT supports FSR 3.1 upscaling and frame generation plus driver-level AMD Fluid Motion Frames, which work in a broader set of games. Neither card supports FSR 4.
VRAM: The Long-Term Tiebreaker
The 4 GB difference matters more each year. As a rough guide for current AAA games, 8 GB is enough for 1080p at high textures in most titles, while 1440p increasingly calls for 10-12 GB. The RX 6700 XT’s 12 GB gives it comfortable headroom at 1440p and in texture-heavy games, while the A750 will more often need texture settings reduced at that resolution. For a card bought to last several more years, the RX 6700 XT’s memory advantage is significant.
Power, PSU and Fit
Rated power is nearly identical: 230 W for the RX 6700 XT and 225 W for the A750. Using GPU TDP plus CPU plus about 150 W headroom with a 125 W CPU gives roughly 505 W for the RX 6700 XT and 500 W for the A750, so a quality 550-650 W unit suits either. Both use one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector and are dual-slot designs. The RX 6700 XT reference card is 267 mm long; A750 partner models vary in size, so check the specific model’s length against your case.
One note for always-on PCs: Arc Alchemist cards are known for relatively high idle power draw unless PCIe power management (ASPM) is enabled in the BIOS and Windows. It is fixable, but it requires a bit of setup.
Value Comparison
Using launch MSRP and setting the A750 to 100 and the RX 6700 XT to about 122 (midpoint of the 15-30% range):
- Arc A750: $289 / 100 = $2.89 per performance point.
- RX 6700 XT: $479 / 122 = about $3.93 per performance point.
At launch prices the A750 offered better value per frame. On the current used market the gap is smaller: an RX 6700 XT usually sells for roughly $200-$260, while an Arc A750 is commonly found around $130-$180. At those prices the A750 is still cheaper per frame, but the RX 6700 XT’s extra VRAM and consistency justify a modest premium.
Decision Table
| Your setup and budget | Pick |
|---|---|
| Tightest budget, modern DX12 games, 1080p, ReBAR supported | Arc A750 |
| 1440p gaming | RX 6700 XT |
| Older or DirectX 11 game library | RX 6700 XT |
| Older PC without Resizable BAR | RX 6700 XT |
| Light ray tracing at 1080p | Arc A750 (slight edge) |
| Keeping the card for several years | RX 6700 XT |
Final Word
The RX 6700 XT wins on consistency, VRAM and overall speed, making it the safer purchase for most gamers, especially at 1440p. The Arc A750 is a capable 1080p card with good ray tracing for its class and better XeSS upscaling, but it depends on Resizable BAR and modern APIs. At a meaningful discount it is a reasonable choice; at similar prices, the RX 6700 XT is the better card.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the RX 6700 XT faster than the Arc A750?
Generally yes, by roughly 15-30% in modern games according to published review data and benchmark aggregates. The gap is much larger in older DirectX 11 titles. In ray-traced games the A750 can match or beat it.
Does the Arc A750 need Resizable BAR?
Yes. Without Resizable BAR, Arc cards lose a large amount of performance. Check that your motherboard and CPU support it and that it is enabled in the BIOS before buying.
Is 8 GB on the Arc A750 enough?
For 1080p in most games, yes. At 1440p with high textures, several newer games exceed 8 GB, which can cause stutter. The RX 6700 XT’s 12 GB is more comfortable for 1440p.
Which card has better upscaling?
The A750’s XeSS running on dedicated XMX units generally produces cleaner images than FSR 3.1. However, FSR is supported in more games, and the RX 6700 XT also has driver-level Fluid Motion Frames.
What PSU do these cards need?
Both are rated around 225-230 W and use one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. A quality 550-650 W power supply handles either card with a typical gaming CPU.
