GeForce MX250 vs Arc Graphics 140V

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc Graphics 140V and GeForce MX250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Arc Graphics 140V
16 GB LPDDR5x
13.05
+109%

Arc Graphics 140V outperforms MX250 by a whopping 109% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking386576
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data43.44
ArchitectureXe²Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameLunar Lake iGPUGP108B
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 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 cores8384
Core clock speedno data937 MHz
Boost clock speed2050 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology3 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data10 Watt
Texture fill rateno data24.91
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x4
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 typeLPDDR5xGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB2 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_212 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.7 (6.4)
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
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. 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.

Arc Graphics 140V 13.05
+109%
GeForce MX250 6.25

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 5036
+109%
GeForce MX250 2412

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.

Arc Graphics 140V 10705
+131%
GeForce MX250 4633

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.

Arc Graphics 140V 39055
+137%
GeForce MX250 16488

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.

Arc Graphics 140V 9023
+147%
GeForce MX250 3660

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.

Arc Graphics 140V 53014
+146%
GeForce MX250 21545

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Arc Graphics 140V 3824
+247%
GeForce MX250 1103

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 HD41
+86.4%
22
−86.4%
1440p20
+122%
9−10
−122%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+0%
19
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
Hitman 3 16
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 118
+0%
118
+0%
Metro Exodus 25
+0%
25
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
+0%
35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 76
+0%
76
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
+0%
24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 17
+0%
17
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 43
+0%
43
+0%
Hitman 3 16
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 115
+0%
115
+0%
Metro Exodus 19
+0%
19
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 22
+0%
22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
+0%
7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12
+0%
12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
+0%
16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+0%
16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18
+0%
18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how Arc Graphics 140V and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • Arc Graphics 140V is 86% faster in 1080p
  • Arc Graphics 140V is 122% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 71 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.05 6.25
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 3 nm 14 nm

Arc Graphics 140V has a 108.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Graphics 140V is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc Graphics 140V
Arc Graphics 140V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 2 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1542 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.