GeForce GTX 285 vs Arc Graphics 140V

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc Graphics 140V with GeForce GTX 285, including specs and performance data.

Arc Graphics 140V
2024
16 GB LPDDR5x
12.30
+248%

Graphics 140V outperforms GTX 285 by a whopping 248% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking443778
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.26
Power efficiencyno data1.33
ArchitectureXe² (2024)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameLunar Lake iGPUGT200B
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date24 September 2024 (1 year ago)23 December 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$359

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores8240
Core clock speedno data648 MHz
Boost clock speed2050 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology3 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data204 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data51.84
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7085 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data80
L2 Cacheno data256 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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 6-pin
SLI options-+

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 typeLPDDR5xGDDR3
Maximum RAM amount16 GB1 GB
Memory bus widthno data512 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1242 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data159.0 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 dataHDTVTwo Dual Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)no data128bit

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12_211.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

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 140V 12.30
+248%
GTX 285 3.53

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 140V 5131
+248%
Samples: 3485
GTX 285 1476
Samples: 827

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 HD39
+290%
10−12
−290%
1440p26
+271%
7−8
−271%
4K21
+250%
6−7
−250%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data35.90
1440pno data51.29
4Kno data59.83

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 87
+263%
24−27
−263%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 47
+292%
12−14
−292%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+293%
14−16
−293%
Counter-Strike 2 85
+254%
24−27
−254%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Far Cry 5 52
+271%
14−16
−271%
Fortnite 70−75
+306%
18−20
−306%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+279%
14−16
−279%
Forza Horizon 5 70
+289%
18−20
−289%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+275%
12−14
−275%
Valorant 110−120
+267%
30−33
−267%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+293%
14−16
−293%
Counter-Strike 2 42
+250%
12−14
−250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+252%
50−55
−252%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Far Cry 5 47
+292%
12−14
−292%
Fortnite 70−75
+306%
18−20
−306%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+279%
14−16
−279%
Forza Horizon 5 59
+269%
16−18
−269%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+275%
12−14
−275%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+275%
12−14
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+288%
16−18
−288%
Valorant 137
+291%
35−40
−291%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+293%
14−16
−293%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Far Cry 5 44
+267%
12−14
−267%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+279%
14−16
−279%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+275%
12−14
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+250%
8−9
−250%
Valorant 110−120
+267%
30−33
−267%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+306%
18−20
−306%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
+292%
24−27
−292%
Grand Theft Auto V 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+267%
27−30
−267%
Valorant 114
+280%
30−33
−280%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+278%
9−10
−278%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 37
+270%
10−11
−270%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Valorant 65−70
+272%
18−20
−272%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%

This is how Arc Graphics 140V and GTX 285 compete in popular games:

  • Arc Graphics 140V is 290% faster in 1080p
  • Arc Graphics 140V is 271% faster in 1440p
  • Arc Graphics 140V is 250% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.30 3.53
Recency 24 September 2024 23 December 2008
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 3 nm 55 nm

Arc Graphics 140V has a 248% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1733% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Graphics 140V is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc Graphics 140V is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 285 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 97 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 115 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Arc Graphics 140V or GeForce GTX 285, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.