Arc Graphics 130V vs Radeon 680M

Place in the ranking	368	411
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	19.55	no data
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	Xe² (2025)
GPU code name	Rembrandt+	Lunar Lake iGPU
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 January 2023 (2 years ago)	no data

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	768	7
Core clock speed	2000 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	2200 MHz	1850 MHz
Number of transistors	13,100 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	105.6	no data
Floating-point processing power	3.379 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	no data
TMUs	48	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	12	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).

Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	System Shared	LPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	16 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	no data
Memory clock speed	System Shared	no data
Shared memory	+	+

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

Portable Device Dependent

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12_2
Shader Model	6.7	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	1.3	-

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.

Radeon 680M 14.17
+21.1%

Arc Graphics 130V 11.70

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.

Radeon 680M 5448
+21.1%

Arc Graphics 130V 4499

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.

Radeon 680M 10371
+8.9%

Arc Graphics 130V 9523

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.

Radeon 680M 6865

Arc Graphics 130V 8255
+20.2%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Radeon 680M 2303

Arc Graphics 130V 3242
+40.8%

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	37 +15.6%	32 −15.6%
1440p	18 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
4K	10 +25%	8−9 −25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	28 −46.4%	41 +46.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	39 +30%	30−33 −30%
Elden Ring	34 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +21.1%	35−40 −21.1%
Counter-Strike 2	23 −34.8%	31 +34.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +40%	10−11 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	56 −26.8%	71 +26.8%
Metro Exodus	39 +21.9%	30−35 −21.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
Valorant	161 +258%	45−50 −258%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +21.1%	35−40 −21.1%
Counter-Strike 2	21 −33.3%	28 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Dota 2	48 +17.1%	41 −17.1%
Elden Ring	66 +94.1%	30−35 −94.1%
Far Cry 5	36 +28.6%	28 −28.6%
Fortnite	80−85 +19.4%	65−70 −19.4%
Forza Horizon 4	47 −23.4%	58 +23.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	36 −16.7%	40−45 +16.7%
Metro Exodus	27 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +17%	85−90 −17%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +22.9%	35−40 −22.9%
Valorant	30 −50%	45−50 +50%
World of Tanks	180−190 +14.8%	160−170 −14.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +21.1%	35−40 −21.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	25 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Dota 2	61 +22%	50−55 −22%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +15.2%	45−50 −15.2%
Forza Horizon 4	40 −20%	48 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +17%	85−90 −17%
Valorant	146 +224%	45−50 −224%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	17 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Elden Ring	21−24 +29.4%	16−18 −29.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +25.3%	95−100 −25.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
World of Tanks	100−105 +20.5%	80−85 −20.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +21.7%	21−24 −21.7%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +30.8%	24−27 −30.8%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +29.2%	24−27 −29.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
Valorant	35−40 +20.7%	27−30 −20.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Dota 2	24−27 +13.6%	21−24 −13.6%
Elden Ring	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +13.6%	21−24 −13.6%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +23.5%	30−35 −23.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +13.6%	21−24 −13.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	18 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Fortnite	16−18 +23.1%	12−14 −23.1%
Forza Horizon 4	14 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Valorant	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%

This is how Radeon 680M and Arc Graphics 130V compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 16% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 29% faster in 1440p
Radeon 680M is 25% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 680M is 258% faster.
in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 130V is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games: