Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Arc Graphics 140V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 140V and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc Graphics 140V outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 383 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 22.77 |
| Architecture | Xe² (2025) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Lunar Lake iGPU | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | no data | 15 August 2020 (4 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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2050 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 28 Watt |
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 | LPDDR5x | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12_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.
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 Time Spy Graphics
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 | 40
+48.1%
| 27
−48.1%
|
| 1440p | 20
+25%
| 16
−25%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+27.3%
| 11
−27.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45
+200%
|
15
−200%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21
−90.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 37
+185%
|
13
−185%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 78
+105%
|
38
−105%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+27.6%
|
29
−27.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+100%
|
17
−100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+104%
|
26
−104%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+150%
|
12
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
+57.1%
|
28
−57.1%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+81.8%
|
22
−81.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+12.9%
|
31
−12.9%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+40.7%
|
50−55
−40.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+117%
|
30
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 43
+153%
|
17
−153%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+94.7%
|
19
−94.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+37.5%
|
70−75
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+325%
|
8
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+46.4%
|
27−30
−46.4%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+55.9%
|
30−35
−55.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+87.5%
|
96
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+50%
|
34
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+138%
|
24
−138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+37.5%
|
70−75
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+130%
|
23
−130%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 18
+157%
|
7
−157%
|
| Elden Ring | 20−22
+33.3%
|
15
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+171%
|
7
−171%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
+43.9%
|
65−70
−43.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+58.8%
|
16−18
−58.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+55%
|
20−22
−55%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+68.4%
|
19
−68.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+200%
|
8
−200%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7
−28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+200%
|
8
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+200%
|
8
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
11
−63.6%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 140V and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140V is 48% faster in 1080p
- Arc Graphics 140V is 25% faster in 1440p
- Arc Graphics 140V is 27% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 140V is 325% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140V is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.41 | 9.24 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 10 nm |
Arc Graphics 140V has a 45.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc Graphics 140V is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
