Qualcomm Adreno 690 vs Arc Graphics 130V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 130V and Qualcomm Adreno 690, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc Graphics 130V outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by a whopping 333% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 413 | 810 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 26.85 |
| Architecture | Xe² (2025) | no data |
| GPU code name | Lunar Lake iGPU | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | no data | 6 December 2018 (6 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 7 | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1850 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 3 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 7 Watt |
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 type | LPDDR5x | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
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 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 Time Spy Graphics
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 | 32
+39.1%
| 23
−39.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 41
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+446%
|
12−14
−446%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Dota 2 | 41
+193%
|
14
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+75%
|
16
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+353%
|
14−16
−353%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 58
+346%
|
12−14
−346%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+256%
|
24−27
−256%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
+235%
|
45−50
−235%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 48
+269%
|
12−14
−269%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+256%
|
24−27
−256%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 130V and Qualcomm Adreno 690 compete in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 130V is 39% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc Graphics 130V is 2700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 130V is ahead in 51 test (85%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.05 | 2.55 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 5 nm |
Arc Graphics 130V has a 333.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc Graphics 130V is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
