Arc Graphics 140V vs RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile and Arc Graphics 140V, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile
2022
16 GB GDDR6, 225 Watt
53.75
+361%

RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms Arc Graphics 140V by a whopping 361% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking38396
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency18.95no data
ArchitectureAda Lovelace (2022−2024)Xe² (2024)
GPU code nameDG2-512Lunar Lake iGPU
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date12 October 2022 (2 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 cores40968
Core clock speed930 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1680 MHz2050 MHz
Manufacturing process technology6 nm3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Wattno 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 typeGDDR6LPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amount16 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed20000 MHzno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR++

API and SDK 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.

RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile 53.75
+361%
Arc Graphics 140V 11.65

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Time Spy Graphics

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.

RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile 24017
+361%
Arc Graphics 140V 5207

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 5000 Ada Generation Mobile 51771
+384%
Arc Graphics 140V 10688

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 5000 Ada Generation Mobile 30422
+221%
Arc Graphics 140V 9492

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile 14861
+268%
Arc Graphics 140V 4038

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 HD180−190
+350%
40
−350%
1440p90−95
+350%
20
−350%

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 63
+0%
63
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Atomic Heart 44
+0%
44
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85
+0%
85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Atomic Heart 30
+0%
30
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 42
+0%
42
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 45
+0%
45
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+0%
44
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 42
+0%
42
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18
+0%
18
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Atomic Heart 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile and Arc Graphics 140V compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile is 350% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile is 350% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 53.75 11.65
Recency 12 October 2022 24 September 2024
Chip lithography 6 nm 3 nm

RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile has a 361.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc Graphics 140V, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc Graphics 140V in performance tests.

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 5000 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 5000 Ada Generation
Intel Arc Graphics 140V
Arc Graphics 140V

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
23 votes

Rate RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile or Arc Graphics 140V, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.