Radeon R9 270X vs Arc Graphics 140V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc Graphics 140V with Radeon R9 270X, including specs and performance data.
Arc Graphics 140V outperforms R9 270X by a small 7% 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 | 414 | 428 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.68 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 4.80 |
| Architecture | Xe² (2024) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Lunar Lake iGPU | Curacao |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 24 September 2024 (less than a year ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 8 | 1280 |
| Boost clock speed | 2050 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 3 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 84.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2 x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 179.2 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
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.
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.
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
+14.3%
| 35−40
−14.3%
|
| 1440p | 23
+9.5%
| 21−24
−9.5%
|
| 4K | 29
+7.4%
| 27−30
−7.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.69 |
| 1440p | no data | 9.48 |
| 4K | no data | 7.37 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 40
+73.9%
|
21−24
−73.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87
+33.8%
|
65−70
−33.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 31
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+7.7%
|
50−55
−7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85
+30.8%
|
65−70
−30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+33.3%
|
35−40
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+7.2%
|
65−70
−7.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5.9%
|
50−55
−5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+7%
|
40−45
−7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+4.8%
|
100−110
−4.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 28
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+7.7%
|
50−55
−7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
−54.8%
|
65−70
+54.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+5.3%
|
170−180
−5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+20.5%
|
35−40
−20.5%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+7.2%
|
65−70
−7.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5.9%
|
50−55
−5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
−2.3%
|
45−50
+2.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+7%
|
40−45
−7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+100%
|
30−35
−100%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+4.8%
|
100−110
−4.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 27
+17.4%
|
21−24
−17.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+7.7%
|
50−55
−7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+12.8%
|
35−40
−12.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5.9%
|
50−55
−5.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+7%
|
40−45
−7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
−10.7%
|
30−35
+10.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+4.8%
|
100−110
−4.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+7.2%
|
65−70
−7.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+9.1%
|
21−24
−9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+6.7%
|
85−90
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+28.4%
|
70−75
−28.4%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+6.3%
|
120−130
−6.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 20
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+9.4%
|
30−35
−9.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+48%
|
24−27
−48%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+7.7%
|
24−27
−7.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+4.3%
|
21−24
−4.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+9.5%
|
60−65
−9.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+10%
|
20−22
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how Arc Graphics 140V and R9 270X compete in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140V is 14% faster in 1080p
- Arc Graphics 140V is 10% faster in 1440p
- Arc Graphics 140V is 7% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 140V is 100% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 270X is 55% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Graphics 140V is ahead in 59 tests (89%)
- R9 270X is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.14 | 12.24 |
| Recency | 24 September 2024 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 28 nm |
Arc Graphics 140V has a 7.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 833.3% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Arc Graphics 140V and Radeon R9 270X.
Be aware that Arc Graphics 140V is a notebook card while Radeon R9 270X 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.
