Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB vs Arc Graphics 140T
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 140T with Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB, including specs and performance data.
9060 XT 16GB outperforms Graphics 140T by a whopping 333% 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 | 409 | 45 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Xe+ (2025) | RDNA 4 (2025) |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) | 2 January 2025 (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 cores | 8 | 2048 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2530 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 4 nm |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB | no 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 type | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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.
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 45
−278%
| 170
+278%
|
| 1440p | 16
−388%
| 78
+388%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−380%
| 48
+380%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−279%
|
290−300
+279%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−421%
|
140−150
+421%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−177%
|
160−170
+177%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−279%
|
290−300
+279%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−421%
|
140−150
+421%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
−116%
|
120−130
+116%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
−463%
|
270
+463%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−250%
|
270−280
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−302%
|
220−230
+302%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−326%
|
170−180
+326%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−248%
|
170−180
+248%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−179%
|
300−350
+179%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−177%
|
160−170
+177%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
−279%
|
290−300
+279%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
−47.9%
|
270−280
+47.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−421%
|
140−150
+421%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
−116%
|
120−130
+116%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
−451%
|
248
+451%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−250%
|
270−280
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−302%
|
220−230
+302%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−326%
|
170−180
+326%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
−431%
|
154
+431%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−432%
|
140−150
+432%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−248%
|
170−180
+248%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
−371%
|
273
+371%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−179%
|
300−350
+179%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−177%
|
160−170
+177%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−421%
|
140−150
+421%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
−116%
|
120−130
+116%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−483%
|
233
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−302%
|
220−230
+302%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−248%
|
170−180
+248%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−371%
|
146
+371%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
−250%
|
270−280
+250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−565%
|
170−180
+565%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−335%
|
400−450
+335%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−592%
|
83
+592%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−465%
|
95−100
+465%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−169%
|
350−400
+169%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−282%
|
140−150
+282%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−575%
|
80−85
+575%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
−329%
|
120−130
+329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−433%
|
160
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−482%
|
190−200
+482%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−410%
|
102
+410%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
−403%
|
150−160
+403%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−670%
|
75−80
+670%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−250%
|
91
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−510%
|
60−65
+510%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−367%
|
84
+367%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−328%
|
300−350
+328%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−442%
|
100−110
+442%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−660%
|
35−40
+660%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−531%
|
80−85
+531%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−433%
|
80
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−492%
|
140−150
+492%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−638%
|
95−100
+638%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−508%
|
75−80
+508%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 140T and RX 9060 XT 16GB compete in popular games:
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 278% faster in 1080p
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 388% faster in 1440p
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 380% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 9060 XT 16GB is 670% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 9060 XT 16GB surpassed Arc Graphics 140T in all 58 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.47 | 58.29 |
RX 9060 XT 16GB has a 332.7% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc Graphics 140T in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc Graphics 140T is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB 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.
