UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) vs Arc Graphics 140T
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 140T and UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics 140T outperforms Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 421 | 443 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 64.93 |
| Architecture | Xe+ (2025) | no data |
| GPU code name | no data | Rocket Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) | 30 March 2021 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Shared memory | + | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 45
+275%
| 12
−275%
|
| 1440p | 19
+18.8%
| 16−18
−18.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+8.6%
|
70−75
−8.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30
+7.7%
|
24−27
−7.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+7.1%
|
55−60
−7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+8.6%
|
70−75
−8.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+433%
|
9
−433%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+5.4%
|
70−75
−5.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+7.4%
|
50−55
−7.4%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+8.7%
|
45−50
−8.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+5.5%
|
110−120
−5.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+7.1%
|
55−60
−7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+8.6%
|
70−75
−8.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+5.6%
|
170−180
−5.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+463%
|
8
−463%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+5.4%
|
70−75
−5.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+7.4%
|
50−55
−7.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+383%
|
6
−383%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+300%
|
7
−300%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+8.7%
|
45−50
−8.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+75.8%
|
30−35
−75.8%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+5.5%
|
110−120
−5.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+7.1%
|
55−60
−7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+400%
|
8
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+7.4%
|
50−55
−7.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+8.7%
|
45−50
−8.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+5.4%
|
70−75
−5.4%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+7.4%
|
95−100
−7.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−58.3%
|
18−20
+58.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+5.6%
|
120−130
−5.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+6.5%
|
30−35
−6.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+7.1%
|
27−30
−7.1%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+10%
|
60−65
−10%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+9.1%
|
21−24
−9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 140T and UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) compete in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140T is 275% faster in 1080p
- Arc Graphics 140T is 19% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 140T is 463% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is 58% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140T performs better in 57 tests (88%)
- UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.52 | 12.59 |
| Recency | 6 January 2025 | 30 March 2021 |
Arc Graphics 140T has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Arc Graphics 140T and UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake).
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
