Intel Arc 140T Mobile vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc 140T Mobile and the Intel Arc A310E. Both GPUs share an identical percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, and both carry an average benchmark score of 0 in the current dataset. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on architectural specifications and derived computational rates rather than application-level test results.

The raw throughput figures, however, reveal a clear mathematical advantage for the Arc 140T Mobile. The 140T delivers 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 56.7% higher than the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. The FP16 rates follow the same proportional gap: 9.626 TFLOPS for the 140T versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the A310E, both operating at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. Pixel throughput favors the 140T at 75.20 GPixel/s, a 135% advantage over the A310E's 32.00 GPixel/s. Texture fill rate shows the largest relative difference, with the 140T producing 150.4 GTexel/s against the A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s, a 135% lead as well.

These derived metrics stem directly from the shading unit and clock configurations. The 140T operates 1024 shading units at a boost clock of 2350 MHz, while the A310E runs 768 shading units at a fixed 2000 MHz. The combination of more execution units and a higher clock rate compounds into the substantial throughput advantage. The A310E's base clock equals its boost clock at 2000 MHz, indicating a locked operating point, whereas the 140T scales dynamically from 300 MHz base to 2350 MHz boost.

Neither GPU shows benchmark wins in the database, so a win/loss tally cannot be constructed from measured applications. The analysis instead relies on the theoretical peak rates, which consistently favor the 140T across every computation category. The absence of real-world scores limits the confidence of any performance projection, but the specification-level arithmetic leaves little ambiguity about relative compute capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from distinct architectural lineages within Intel's graphics roadmap. The Arc 140T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture on an Arrow Lake-H chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. The Arc A310E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. These are different design families with different target platforms, which explains the divergence in their physical and electrical characteristics.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The 140T is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the A310E uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node contributes to the 140T's lower power envelope and its integration as an IGP. The A310E, by contrast, is a discrete single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, compared to the 140T's 35 W TDP. The A310E's transistor count is recorded at 7,200 million on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm², while the 140T's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Memory architecture presents a fundamental divergence. The 140T uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it draws from the host's main memory pool. The A310E carries 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A310E's memory clock is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate. This dedicated memory gives the A310E predictable bandwidth, while the 140T's performance depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

Core resource counts differ across all categories. The 140T has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 raster operation units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The 140T doubles the A310E's TMU and ROP counts, which directly explains the pixel and texture rate advantages noted earlier. The ray tracing core count favors the 140T by two cores, though no benchmark data quantifies the real-world impact.

Both GPUs support the same API feature set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status differs, with the 140T listed as Active and the A310E as End-of-life. Release dates place the 140T in January 2025 and the A310E in March 2024. The A310E has a recorded successor (Battlemage), while the 140T lists no successor. The 140T's predecessor is HD Graphics-M, whereas the A310E's predecessor is Xe Graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc 140T Mobile wins in every measured compute category from the specification data. Its FP32 throughput of 4.813 TFLOPS exceeds the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS by 56.7%, making it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that rely on single-precision floating-point operations. The FP16 advantage mirrors this pattern, which matters for applications that can exploit reduced precision for machine learning inference or media processing.

The texture and pixel throughput advantages are more pronounced. The 140T's 150.4 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s represents a 135% lead in texture fill, which benefits games and rendering workloads that sample textures heavily. The pixel rate advantage of 75.20 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s similarly favors the 140T for rasterization-heavy tasks. These ratios stem from the 140T having double the TMUs and ROPs of the A310E, combined with a higher clock frequency.

The A310E wins in memory determinism. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 pool with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth operates independently of the host system, whereas the 140T relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth labeled as system dependent. For workloads where memory latency and bandwidth consistency matter more than raw compute, the A310E's fixed memory configuration provides predictable behavior. The A310E also supports PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity, compared to the 140T's IGP bus interface, which could matter for systems where the CPU cannot supply sufficient memory bandwidth to an integrated GPU.

Power consumption favors the 140T. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the A310E's 75 W TDP. For thermally constrained or battery-powered systems, the 140T's lower power draw is a decisive advantage. The A310E's suggested PSU is 250 W, while the 140T lists no suggested PSU due to its integrated nature. The A310E requires no power connectors, drawing its power entirely from the PCIe slot.

The A310E offers dedicated display outputs with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, whereas the 140T's display outputs are portable device dependent. In a desktop workstation context, the A310E's fixed display connectivity is more versatile. In a mobile or embedded context, the 140T's integration into the host device eliminates the need for external display controllers.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Intel Arc 140T Mobile is the more capable GPU in raw computational terms. Every throughput metric in the database favors the 140T: FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate. The 140T also uses less power, integrates more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores, and comes from a more recent architecture generation on a smaller process node. For workloads that stress compute throughput, the 140T is the superior choice.

The Arc A310E holds distinct advantages only in memory architecture and physical form. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth is not dependent on the host system's memory subsystem, unlike the 140T's system-shared configuration. The A310E also provides standard display outputs and a single-slot discrete card layout, making it deployable in desktop systems that lack compatible processors for the 140T's IGP design.

The 140T's 35 W TDP versus the A310E's 75 W TDP means the 140T is better suited for low-power platforms, though the A310E's 75 W draw is still modest for a discrete card. The 140T's active production status versus the A310E's end-of-life status suggests ongoing availability for the 140T and diminishing supply for the A310E. The A310E's successor, Battlemage, indicates Intel's roadmap continues beyond the Alchemist generation.

Selecting between these GPUs depends on the host platform rather than raw performance. The 140T only functions as an IGP within an Arrow Lake-H system, so its performance is contingent on the CPU and memory configuration. The A310E functions in any system with a PCIe 4.0 x8 slot. For a new mobile or embedded design based on Arrow Lake-H, the 140T delivers higher compute at lower power. For an existing desktop system requiring a low-profile discrete GPU with dedicated memory, the A310E remains a functional option despite its end-of-life status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 56.7% higher than the Intel Arc A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The Arc 140T Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Arc 140T Mobile has 8 ray tracing cores, compared to 6 ray tracing cores on the Arc A310E.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Arc 140T Mobile has a 35 W TDP, while the Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP. The A310E also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The Arc 140T Mobile is listed as Active, while the Arc A310E is listed as End-of-life.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc 140T Mobile | Intel Arc A310E |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Xe-LPG+ | Xe-HPG |

| Chip | Arrow Lake-H | DG2-128 |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) | Alchemist (Arc 3) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2350 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 124.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | Not applicable | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 75.20 GPixel/s | 32.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 150.4 GTexel/s | 64.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.813 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 9.626 TFLOPS (2:1) | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-M | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | None listed | Battlemage |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | None listed |