Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
2023
8 GB GDDR6, 115 Watt
39.55
+280%

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) by a whopping 280% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking111440
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency23.73no data
ArchitectureAda Lovelace (2022−2024)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameno dataMeteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date21 March 2023 (1 year ago)14 December 2023 (1 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 cores30724
Boost clock speedno data1950 MHz
Manufacturing process technology5 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt (35 - 115 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 sizelargeno 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 typeGDDR6no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed16000 MHzno data
Shared memory-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate12_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. 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.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 39.55
+280%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 10.42

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.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 28910
+327%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 6776

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.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 21379
+304%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 5295

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.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 115230
+287%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 29765

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 8095
+319%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 1930

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 HD90−95
+260%
25
−260%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Elden Ring 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Elden Ring 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 39
+0%
39
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 260% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 39.55 10.42
Recency 21 March 2023 14 December 2023

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile has a 279.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) in performance tests.

Be aware that RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is a mobile workstation one.


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.


NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

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.


4.3 19 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 7 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 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.