Key takeaways
- Resizable BAR: The A750 depends on it. On older systems without ReBAR, performance can drop significantly, which often makes the 5700 XT the better upgrade for aging PCs.
- Driver focus: RDNA 1 is now an older architecture, and AMD has signaled that older Radeon generations receive less priority for new-game optimizations than current hardware. Intel continues to update Arc drivers, though older DirectX 9 and 11 titles can still be inconsistent.
For a gamer playing mostly new releases, the Arc A750 is the better choice because it matches or slightly beats the RX 5700 XT in modern DirectX 12 games and adds hardware ray tracing and XeSS, which some current games now require; the RX 5700 XT remains the steadier option for older DirectX 11 libraries and for systems without Resizable BAR. In average raster performance the two cards are close enough that features and platform compatibility, not raw frame rates, should decide this matchup.
Same Performance Class, Different Generations
The RX 5700 XT launched on 7 July 2019 at $399 as AMD’s first RDNA card. It has 2,560 stream processors, a 256-bit bus with 448 GB/s of bandwidth and a 225 W TDP. The Arc A750 launched on 12 October 2022 at $289 using Intel’s Alchemist architecture (listed as Generation 12.7), with 3,584 shading units, a 256-bit bus at 512 GB/s and, coincidentally, the same 225 W TDP.
The A750 has far more compute on paper, but first-generation Arc drivers and architecture overheads hold it back in some workloads, which is why the two cards often end up in the same performance neighbourhood.
Specification Comparison
| Spec | RX 5700 XT | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Generation 12.7 (Alchemist) |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 | 12 October 2022 |
| Launch MSRP | $399 | $289 |
| Shading units | 2,560 | 3,584 |
| Boost clock | 1,905 MHz | 2,400 MHz |
| Process | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| TDP | 225 W | 225 W |
| Memory | 8 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR6 |
| Bus / bandwidth | 256-bit / 448.0 GB/s | 256-bit / 512.0 GB/s |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 16 MB |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Length / width | 272 mm / 2-slot | Varies by model / 2-slot |
| Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DP 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DP 2.0 |
How They Compare in Games
Published comparison data puts the two cards close together in average gaming performance, with results that split by API. Benchmark aggregators that break results out by graphics API show the A750 ahead by a single-digit margin in DirectX 12 games, while the RX 5700 XT pulls clearly ahead in DirectX 11 titles, where Intel’s drivers are weaker. Resolution-based comparisons show a similar story: the 5700 XT edges ahead by a few percent at 1080p, the two are within about 1% at 1440p ultra, and the A750 gains a modest lead at 4K thanks to its higher bandwidth.
Some aggregator scores that lean on PassMark put the 5700 XT well ahead, while 3DMark-heavy summaries favor the A750; neither extreme reflects typical gaming. A fair summary is that the cards are roughly equal in modern games, give or take 10% depending on the title. As an approximate guide that varies with settings, CPU and patches, both cards tend to land in a similar 55-85 fps range in many modern titles at 1080p high settings.
Ray Tracing: The Feature Gap That Now Matters
The RX 5700 XT has no hardware ray tracing and does not support the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set. That used to be a minor point, but several recent games, including Indiana Jones and the Great Circle and Doom: The Dark Ages, require ray tracing-capable hardware to launch at all. On the 5700 XT those titles are simply not playable, while the A750 can run them, albeit at modest settings.
In games where ray tracing is optional, the A750’s RT units let it use light effects at 1080p with upscaling. The 5700 XT has to leave them off. This is the single strongest argument for the Intel card if you buy new games.
Upscaling and Frame Generation
The A750 supports XeSS with its XMX matrix engines for the better-quality upscaling path, and Intel’s XeSS 2 adds frame generation for Arc cards in supported games. It can also run FSR. The 5700 XT supports FSR 3.1 upscaling and FSR frame generation in games that implement it, along with AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2 at the driver level, but it cannot use FSR 4, which needs RDNA 4. In practice, both cards benefit from upscaling at 1440p, and the A750 gets the cleaner image.
Driver Support and Platform Needs
Two platform issues can decide this comparison:
- Resizable BAR: The A750 depends on it. On older systems without ReBAR, performance can drop significantly, which often makes the 5700 XT the better upgrade for aging PCs.
- Driver focus: RDNA 1 is now an older architecture, and AMD has signaled that older Radeon generations receive less priority for new-game optimizations than current hardware. Intel continues to update Arc drivers, though older DirectX 9 and 11 titles can still be inconsistent.
Power, PSU and Physical Fit
Both are rated at 225 W and use one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector, so the power requirements are identical on paper. A sizing calculation with a typical 105 W gaming CPU and roughly 150 W of headroom gives 225 + 105 + 150 = 480 W, so a quality 550-600 W power supply is the right target for either card. The reference RX 5700 XT is 272 mm long with a blower cooler that can run loud; partner cards with open-air coolers are much quieter. A750 lengths vary by model, so confirm case clearance before buying.
Value and Used-Market Pricing
At launch, the math favoured Intel. Taking both cards as roughly equal in performance at 100 points:
- RX 5700 XT: $399 / 100 = about $4.00 per point.
- Arc A750: $289 / 100 = about $2.90 per point.
Today the comparison is mostly a used-market one. An RX 5700 XT usually sells for around $100-$150 used, and the A750 for around $120-$170. The 5700 XT is often the cheaper card, but its lack of ray tracing locks it out of some new games, which shortens its useful life. Inspect used 5700 XT units carefully, as many were used for cryptocurrency mining, and replacing tired thermal paste can noticeably cut temperatures.
Decision Table by Use Case
| Scenario | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| New AAA releases at 1080p | Arc A750 | Runs RT-required games; XeSS support |
| 1440p on a tight budget | Arc A750 | Higher bandwidth; better upscaling |
| Older DX11 games, esports | RX 5700 XT | More consistent drivers in older APIs |
| Older PC without Resizable BAR | RX 5700 XT | Arc loses significant performance without ReBAR |
| Lowest possible spend | RX 5700 XT (used) | Often cheaper, if RT-required games are not a priority |
For anyone able to stretch the budget, current cards such as the Arc B580 or RX 9060 XT offer more memory, better upscaling and full modern feature support, making them a better long-term buy than either of these.
Streaming, Encoding and Displays
The A750 has a newer media engine with hardware AV1 encoding, which offers better image quality at the same bitrate than the H.264 and HEVC encoders on the RX 5700 XT. Anyone who streams or records gameplay will notice the difference, especially at lower bitrates. The 5700 XT’s encoder works, but it was never a strong point of the RDNA 1 generation.
Display support also favours Intel. The A750 offers HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0, making it easier to drive high-refresh 4K TVs and monitors, while the 5700 XT is limited to HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a. For a 1080p or 1440p monitor at up to 165 Hz, both are perfectly adequate.
Finally, consider noise. Reference 5700 XT blower cards are loud under load, so a used purchase should ideally be a partner model with an open-air cooler.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Arc A750 faster than the RX 5700 XT?
In modern DirectX 12 games the A750 is roughly equal or slightly faster. In older DirectX 11 games the RX 5700 XT is usually ahead. Overall, the two cards sit within about 10% of each other in most titles.
Can the RX 5700 XT run games that require ray tracing?
No. The RX 5700 XT lacks hardware ray tracing, so games that mandate RT support, such as Indiana Jones and the Great Circle and Doom: The Dark Ages, will not launch. The Arc A750 can run them at reduced settings.
What power supply do these cards need?
Both are rated at 225 W and use a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector. A quality 550-600 W power supply is a comfortable match with a typical gaming CPU.
Does the Arc A750 work in older PCs?
It works, but it needs Resizable BAR to perform well. Without ReBAR support, frame rates and smoothness can drop significantly, so the RX 5700 XT is usually the better fit for older platforms.
Is 8 GB of VRAM still enough?
At 1080p it remains usable with medium to high textures in most games. Demanding new releases may need lower texture settings, and 1440p at high settings often exceeds 8 GB.
