Arc Graphics 130V vs Radeon Pro WX 8200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with Arc Graphics 130V, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018, $999
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
29.94
+177%

Pro 8200 outperforms Graphics 130V by a whopping 177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking217479
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.76no data
Power efficiency10.07no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Xe² (2024)
GPU code nameVega 10Lunar Lake iGPU
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (8 years ago)24 September 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

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 cores35847
Core clock speed1200 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1850 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Wattno data
Texture fill rate336.0no data
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs224no data
L1 Cache896 KBno data
L2 Cache4 MBno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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.

Memory typeHBM2LPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12_2
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.1.125-

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.

Pro WX 8200 29.94
+177%
Arc Graphics 130V 10.81

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro WX 8200 12474
+177%
Samples: 110
Arc Graphics 130V 4503
Samples: 1285

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 HD90−95
+165%
34
−165%
1440p60−65
+161%
23
−161%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.10no data
1440p16.65no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 51
+0%
51
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 43
+0%
43
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and Arc Graphics 130V compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 165% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 161% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.94 10.81
Recency 13 August 2018 24 September 2024
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 3 nm

Pro WX 8200 has a 177% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc Graphics 130V, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 367% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc Graphics 130V in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation graphics card while Arc Graphics 130V is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 29 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 74 votes

Rate Arc Graphics 130V on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro WX 8200 or Arc Graphics 130V, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.