Intel
Intel Arc A750 vs GeForce 9500 GT
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
9500 GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A750 and 9500 GT across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Arc A750 outperforms 9500 GT by ~31% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+31%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Intel Arc A750 (~7%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Arc A750
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Reasons to consider 9500 GT
- Lower stated power consumption
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
Intel
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
5139
76100
100100
6813
Graphics card ranking
Positions 53–58of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Intel Arc A750
124 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 9500 GT
Price $35.95Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
51Better
39
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
43Better
34
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
41Better
32
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
76
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
61Better
57
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Vulkan
Thickness
Length
TFLOPSBetter
HDMI
Device class
Upscaling
DirectX
Compute API
Architecture
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
DisplayPort
OpenGL
Power consumptionBetter
Launch priceBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Process nodeBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache
Transistor countBetter
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Arc A750 and 9500 GT across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Arc A7509500 GT
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
221 FPS
197 FPS
1080p Ultra
156 FPS
138 FPS
1440p Ultra
121 FPS
74 FPS
4K Ultra
47 FPS
27 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Arc A750221 FPS9500 GT197 FPSArc A750156 FPS9500 GT138 FPSArc A750121 FPS9500 GT74 FPSArc A75047 FPS9500 GT27 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Arc A750143 FPS9500 GT127 FPSArc A750123 FPS9500 GT109 FPSArc A75088 FPS9500 GT54 FPSArc A75032 FPS9500 GT18 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Arc A750180 FPS9500 GT160 FPSArc A750117 FPS9500 GT104 FPSArc A750109 FPS9500 GT67 FPSArc A75069 FPS9500 GT39 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyArc A750117 FPS9500 GT104 FPSArc A75098 FPS9500 GT87 FPSArc A75079 FPS9500 GT48 FPSArc A75032 FPS9500 GT18 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100513927%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100583258%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100563255%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1006813136%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1007610027%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100592774%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100582870%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100563255%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100602486%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100563157%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.210.0
Vulkan1.4Not supported
OpenGL4.63.3
UpscalingXeSSNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureXe-HPGTesla
Process node6 nmBetter65 nm
Release date20222008
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count21700 millionBetter314 million
Die size406 mm²144 mm²Better
Shader units / cores3584Better32
Base clock2050 MHzBetter600 MHz
Boost clock2400 MHzBetter600 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 4x16PCIe 2x16
LengthVaries by boardVaries by board
ThicknessDual-slotSingle-slot
Recommended PSU550 W250 WBetter
Power connector6+8 pinNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1Board dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 2.0Board dependent
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors43
Max resolution7680 × 43202560 × 1600
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM8 GB GDDR6512 MB GDDR3Better
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR3
Memory bus256 bitBetter128 bit
TFLOPS17.2Better0.096
Other comparisons
RX 7600 XTAMDReviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 70
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (6)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Arc A750 or 9500 GT?+
Arc A750 has the higher overall gaming score, while Arc A750 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
9500 GT is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
9500 GT is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Arc A750 offers more overall performance, while Arc A750 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
9500 GT is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Arc A750 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Arc A750 leads in combined 1440p performance. Arc A750 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Arc A750 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
9500 GT is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
9500 GT is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Arc A750 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.