Arc Graphics 140V vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Arc Graphics 140V, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Arc Graphics 140V by an impressive 81% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 242 | 396 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.92 | no data |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Xe² (2024) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Lunar Lake iGPU |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 24 September 2024 (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 | 2048 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | no data |
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 size | large | 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 | GDDR6 | LPDDR5x |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12_2 |
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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 62
+55%
| 40
−55%
|
| 1440p | 43
+115%
| 20
−115%
|
| 4K | 26
+85.7%
| 14−16
−85.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 71
+12.7%
|
63
−12.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+95.4%
|
87
−95.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+154%
|
24−27
−154%
|
| Atomic Heart | 54
+22.7%
|
44
−22.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125
+47.1%
|
85
−47.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+33.3%
|
51
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+57.5%
|
70−75
−57.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+70.4%
|
50−55
−70.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87
+118%
|
40−45
−118%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+93.5%
|
45−50
−93.5%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+46.4%
|
110−120
−46.4%
|
| Atomic Heart | 32
+6.7%
|
30
−6.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+61.8%
|
55−60
−61.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
−16.7%
|
42
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+41.6%
|
170−180
−41.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+57.7%
|
24−27
−57.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+81.5%
|
65−70
−81.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+42.2%
|
45
−42.2%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+57.5%
|
70−75
−57.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+70.4%
|
50−55
−70.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77
+92.5%
|
40−45
−92.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+95.5%
|
44
−95.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+88.5%
|
24−27
−88.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+93.5%
|
45−50
−93.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+30.6%
|
62
−30.6%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+46.4%
|
110−120
−46.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+50.9%
|
55−60
−50.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+30.8%
|
24−27
−30.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+86.7%
|
60−65
−86.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+45.2%
|
42
−45.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+70.4%
|
50−55
−70.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+93.5%
|
45−50
−93.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+64.3%
|
28
−64.3%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+46.4%
|
110−120
−46.4%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+57.5%
|
70−75
−57.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+71.6%
|
95−100
−71.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+167%
|
18
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+93.3%
|
14−16
−93.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+64.2%
|
100−110
−64.2%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+48.1%
|
130−140
−48.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+94.1%
|
30−35
−94.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+40%
|
35
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+90.3%
|
30−35
−90.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+95%
|
20−22
−95%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+97.1%
|
65−70
−97.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+81.8%
|
21−24
−81.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Arc Graphics 140V compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 55% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 115% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 86% 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 RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 188% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 140V is 17% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is ahead in 59 tests (98%)
- Arc Graphics 140V is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.12 | 11.65 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 24 September 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 3 nm |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 81.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Arc Graphics 140V, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc Graphics 140V in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
