FirePro V3900 vs Arc Graphics 140T

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc Graphics 140T with FirePro V3900, including specs and performance data.

Arc Graphics 140T
2025
13.55
+797%

Graphics 140T outperforms V3900 by a whopping 797% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4211032
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.14
Power efficiencyno data2.33
ArchitectureXe+ (2025)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameno dataTurks
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 January 2025 (1 year ago)7 February 2012 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$119

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 cores8480
Core clock speedno data650 MHz
Number of transistorsno data716 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data199 Watt
Texture fill rateno data15.60
Floating-point processing powerno data0.624 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data24
L1 Cacheno data48 KB
L2 Cache8 MB256 KB

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 2.1 x16
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Form factorno datahalf height / half length
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.1
DisplayPort countno data1
Dual-link DVI support-+
HD сomponent video output-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data11.2 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-N/A

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.

Arc Graphics 140T 13.55
+797%
FirePro V3900 1.51

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 Graphics 140T 5634
+799%
Samples: 7
FirePro V3900 627
Samples: 174

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 HD45
+800%
5−6
−800%
1440p19
+850%
2−3
−850%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data23.80
1440pno data59.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
+833%
6−7
−833%
Far Cry 5 48
+860%
5−6
−860%
Fortnite 75−80
+875%
8−9
−875%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+867%
6−7
−867%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Valorant 110−120
+867%
12−14
−867%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+944%
18−20
−944%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
+833%
6−7
−833%
Far Cry 5 45
+800%
5−6
−800%
Fortnite 75−80
+875%
8−9
−875%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+867%
6−7
−867%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 58
+867%
6−7
−867%
Valorant 110−120
+867%
12−14
−867%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
+833%
6−7
−833%
Far Cry 5 40
+900%
4−5
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+867%
6−7
−867%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+933%
3−4
−933%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+875%
8−9
−875%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+920%
10−11
−920%
Grand Theft Auto V 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Valorant 130−140
+836%
14−16
−836%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Escape from Tarkov 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Valorant 65−70
+843%
7−8
−843%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

This is how Arc Graphics 140T and FirePro V3900 compete in popular games:

  • Arc Graphics 140T is 800% faster in 1080p
  • Arc Graphics 140T is 850% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.55 1.51
Recency 6 January 2025 7 February 2012

Arc Graphics 140T has a 797% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 12 years.

The Arc Graphics 140T is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro V3900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc Graphics 140T is a notebook graphics card while FirePro V3900 is a workstation 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.


3.9 52 votes

Rate Arc Graphics 140T on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 102 votes

Rate FirePro V3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc Graphics 140T or FirePro V3900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.