Arc Graphics 140V vs GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
Arc Graphics 140V
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Arc Graphics 140V is positioned at rank #308 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc Graphics 140V
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc Graphics 140V is significantly newer (2024 vs 2018). The Arc Graphics 140V likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Arc Graphics 140V is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) |
| Longevity | Xe² (2024) (3nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $60 versus $300 for the Arc Graphics 140V, it costs 80% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 395% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+395%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($60) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Arc Graphics 140V and GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
Arc Graphics 140V
The Arc Graphics 140V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in September 24 2024. It features the Xe² architecture. The boost clock speed is 2050 MHz. It has 8 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 3 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,168 points.
GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1392 MHz to 1518 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,116 points.
Graphics Performance
The Arc Graphics 140V scores 5,168 and the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB reaches 5,116 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc Graphics 140V is built on Xe² while the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB uses Pascal, both on 3 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 8 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Boost clocks: 2050 MHz vs 1518 MHz.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,168+1% | 5,116 |
| Architecture | Xe² | Pascal |
| Process Node | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 8 | 768+9500% |
| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz+35% | 1518 MHz |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Arc Graphics 140V comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB has 3 GB. The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 96-bit.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared | 3 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 84 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 96-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc Graphics 140V) vs NVENC 6.0 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC 6.0 |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc Graphics 140V draws 15W versus the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB's 75W — a 133.3% difference. The Arc Graphics 140V is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Power connectors: Integrated vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 145mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 65.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-80% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Integrated | None |
| Length | 0mm | 145mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 65-24% |
| Perf/Watt | 344.5+405% | 68.2 |
Value Analysis
The Arc Graphics 140V launched at $350 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB launched at $129 and now averages $60. The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB costs 80% less ($240 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 17.2 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 85.3 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB) — the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB offers 395.9% better value. The Arc Graphics 140V is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2018).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $350 | $129-63% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $60-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.2 | 85.3+396% |
| Codename | Lunar Lake iGPU | GP107 |
| Release | September 24 2024 | May 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #434 | #440 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc Graphics 140V and GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
