Arc Graphics 130V vs Arc A310

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A310 with Arc Graphics 130V, including specs and performance data.

Arc A310
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 75 Watt
12.22
+21.8%

Arc A310 outperforms Arc Graphics 130V by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking377424
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.97no data
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)Xe² (2024)
GPU code nameDG2-128Lunar Lake iGPU
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 October 2022 (2 years ago)24 September 2024 (less than a year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores7687
Core clock speed2000 MHzno data
Boost clock speed2000 MHz1850 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology6 nm3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate64.00no data
Floating-point processing power3.072 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data
Tensor Cores96no data
Ray Tracing Cores6no 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 4.0 x8no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR6LPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1937 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth124.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12_2
Shader Model6.6no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

Arc A310 12.22
+21.8%
Arc Graphics 130V 10.03

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.

Arc A310 5464
+21.9%
Arc Graphics 130V 4484

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.

Arc A310 11915
+25.1%
Arc Graphics 130V 9523

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.

Arc A310 8464
+2.5%
Arc Graphics 130V 8255

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Arc A310 3269
+0.8%
Arc Graphics 130V 3242

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 HD37
+19.4%
31
−19.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 54
+100%
27−30
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 154
+202%
51
−202%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 40
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+20.8%
45−50
−20.8%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+126%
47
−126%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 51
+24.4%
41
−24.4%
Fortnite 75−80
+18.8%
60−65
−18.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+19.1%
45−50
−19.1%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+23.5%
30−35
−23.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+23.1%
35−40
−23.1%
Valorant 110−120
+14.1%
95−100
−14.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 27
+0%
27−30
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+20.8%
45−50
−20.8%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+32%
25
−32%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+15.7%
150−160
−15.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 47
+27%
37
−27%
Fortnite 75−80
+18.8%
60−65
−18.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+19.1%
45−50
−19.1%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+23.5%
30−35
−23.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
−46.4%
41
+46.4%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+23.1%
35−40
−23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+93.1%
27−30
−93.1%
Valorant 110−120
+14.1%
95−100
−14.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+20.8%
45−50
−20.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 44
+33.3%
33
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+19.1%
45−50
−19.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+23.1%
35−40
−23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+14.1%
95−100
−14.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+18.8%
60−65
−18.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+19.3%
80−85
−19.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+78.8%
65−70
−78.8%
Valorant 140−150
+17.6%
110−120
−17.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+32.1%
27−30
−32.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+26.1%
21−24
−26.1%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+26.9%
24−27
−26.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
+26.1%
21−24
−26.1%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+38.5%
12−14
−38.5%
Valorant 70−75
+24.1%
55−60
−24.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

This is how Arc A310 and Arc Graphics 130V compete in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is 19% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A310 is 202% faster.
  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 130V is 46% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is ahead in 57 tests (95%)
  • Arc Graphics 130V is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.22 10.03
Recency 12 October 2022 24 September 2024
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 3 nm

Arc A310 has a 21.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc Graphics 130V, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc Graphics 130V in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A310 is a desktop card while Arc Graphics 130V is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc A310
Arc A310
Intel Arc Graphics 130V
Arc Graphics 130V

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.


3.7 262 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc A310 or Arc Graphics 130V, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.