GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs Arc Graphics 140T
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 140T with GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB, including specs and performance data.
Arc Graphics 140T outperforms GTX 1050 3 GB by a moderate 10% 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 | 394 | 424 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.35 |
| Architecture | Xe+ (2025) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | no data | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) | 21 May 2018 (7 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 | 8 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1392 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1518 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 72.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 24 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 84.1 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 51
+13.3%
| 45−50
−13.3%
|
| 1440p | 23
+27.8%
| 18−21
−27.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+18.5%
|
65−70
−18.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+20%
|
50−55
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+18.5%
|
65−70
−18.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+11.4%
|
70−75
−11.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+11.1%
|
45−50
−11.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+16%
|
100−105
−16%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+20%
|
50−55
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+18.5%
|
65−70
−18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+14.4%
|
160−170
−14.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+12.5%
|
40−45
−12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+11.4%
|
70−75
−11.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+20.8%
|
24−27
−20.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+11.1%
|
45−50
−11.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+18%
|
50−55
−18%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+16%
|
100−105
−16%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+20%
|
50−55
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+11.1%
|
45−50
−11.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+11.4%
|
70−75
−11.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+13.3%
|
90−95
−13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+18.3%
|
120−130
−18.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+15.4%
|
65−70
−15.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 140T and GTX 1050 3 GB compete in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140T is 13% faster in 1080p
- Arc Graphics 140T is 28% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.30 | 12.05 |
| Recency | 6 January 2025 | 21 May 2018 |
Arc Graphics 140T has a 10.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 years.
The Arc Graphics 140T is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc Graphics 140T is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
