Arc Graphics 140V vs Radeon R9 Nano

Place in the ranking	259	390
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.33	no data
Power efficiency	8.70	no data
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Xe² (2025)
GPU code name	Fiji	Lunar Lake iGPU
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)	no data
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	4096	8
Compute units	64	no data
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	2050 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	256.0	no data
Floating-point processing power	8.192 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	256	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	152 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	no data
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)	LPDDR5x
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	no data
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12_2
Shader Model	6.3	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	+	-
Mantle	+	-

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.

R9 Nano 21.58
+65%

Arc Graphics 140V 13.08

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.

R9 Nano 8486
+65%

Arc Graphics 140V 5144

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.

R9 Nano 17282
+61.7%

Arc Graphics 140V 10688

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.

R9 Nano 43546
+11.5%

Arc Graphics 140V 39055

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.

R9 Nano 14362
+51.3%

Arc Graphics 140V 9492

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.

R9 Nano 81374
+53.5%

Arc Graphics 140V 53014

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	89 +123%	40 −123%
1440p	30−35 +42.9%	21 −42.9%
4K	50 +66.7%	30−35 −66.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.29	no data
1440p	21.63	no data
4K	12.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −15.4%	45 +15.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +83.3%	24−27 −83.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +56.8%	40−45 −56.8%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +5.4%	37 −5.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +83.3%	24−27 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +21.8%	78 −21.8%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +59.5%	35−40 −59.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +51.5%	30−35 −51.5%
Valorant	85−90 +64.8%	50−55 −64.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +56.8%	40−45 −56.8%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +30%	30 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +83.3%	24−27 −83.3%
Dota 2	75−80 +75%	44 −75%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +103%	35 −103%
Fortnite	110−120 +50%	75−80 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +46.2%	65 −46.2%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 +79.1%	43 −79.1%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +59.5%	35−40 −59.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +45.5%	95−100 −45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +51.5%	30−35 −51.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 −20.6%	40−45 +20.6%
Valorant	85−90 +64.8%	50−55 −64.8%
World of Tanks	240−250 +36.3%	170−180 −36.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +56.8%	40−45 −56.8%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +56%	25 −56%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +83.3%	24−27 −83.3%
Dota 2	75−80 +71.1%	45−50 −71.1%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +42%	50−55 −42%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +66.7%	57 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +45.5%	95−100 −45.5%
Valorant	85−90 +64.8%	50−55 −64.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +33.3%	18−20 −33.3%
Dota 2	35−40 +100%	18 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +80%	20−22 −80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +74%	100−105 −74%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +66.7%	12−14 −66.7%
World of Tanks	140−150 +55.8%	95−100 −55.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +66.7%	27−30 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +100%	30−35 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +81.3%	30−35 −81.3%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +66.7%	21−24 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +78.6%	27−30 −78.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +77.8%	18−20 −77.8%
Valorant	55−60 +75.8%	30−35 −75.8%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Dota 2	35−40 +58.3%	24−27 −58.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +58.3%	24−27 −58.3%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +71.8%	35−40 −71.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +58.3%	24−27 −58.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Dota 2	35−40 +81%	21−24 −81%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +70.6%	16−18 −70.6%
Fortnite	27−30 +80%	14−16 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +73.7%	18−20 −73.7%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Valorant	27−30 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%

This is how R9 Nano and Arc Graphics 140V compete in popular games:

R9 Nano is 123% faster in 1080p
R9 Nano is 43% faster in 1440p
R9 Nano is 67% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Nano is 113% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc Graphics 140V is 21% faster.

All in all, in popular games: