Arc Graphics 140V vs GeForce GTX 1650
Arc Graphics 140V
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 52.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (4 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Arc Graphics 140V.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-52.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+52.3%) |
| Longevity | Xe² (2024) (3nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| 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 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $300 for the Arc Graphics 140V, it costs 75% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 509.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+509.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
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 1650
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 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Arc Graphics 140V scores 5,168 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 52.3%. The Arc Graphics 140V is built on Xe² while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 3 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 8 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2050 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,168 | 7,869+52% |
| Architecture | Xe² | Turing |
| Process Node | 3 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 8 | 896+11100% |
| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz+23% | 1665 MHz |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc Graphics 140V) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc Graphics 140V draws 15W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 133.3% difference. The Arc Graphics 140V is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Integrated vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-80% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Integrated | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 70°C-18% |
| Perf/Watt | 344.5+228% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The Arc Graphics 140V launched at $350 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 75% less ($225 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 17.2 (Arc Graphics 140V) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 509.9% better value. The Arc Graphics 140V is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 140V | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $350 | $149-57% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $75-75% |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.2 | 104.9+510% |
| Codename | Lunar Lake iGPU | TU117 |
| Release | September 24 2024 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #434 | #323 |
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 1650
